[Twg] TWG meeting minutes for 2012-04-05

[John Carrier]

Attached are the minutes from our 4/5/2012 meeting.   We discussed requirements for re-evaluating the Lustre test suite during the call.  Please take a look at the notes and post corrections/questions/comments to discuss at lists.opensfs.org.  

Our next meeting is this Thursday, 4/12/2012 @ 9:30a PDT/12:30p EDT
   Dial-in numbers are 1-715-726-4994 or 1-866-304-8294
   Meeting ID and password are 72090

Thanks,

--jc
-------------- next part --------------
OpenSFS Technical Working Group
Meeting minutes : 2012-04-05

Concall: start : 9:30a PT, adjourn : 10:30a PT

Next meeting: Thursday, 04/12/2012 @ 9:30a PDT/12:30p EDT
   Dial-in numbers are 1-715-726-4994 or 1-866-304-8294
   Meeting ID and password are 72090


Attending: 

   Name                 Organization   email
   -----------------    ------------   -------------------------------
   Diego Moreno         Bull           Diego.Moreno-Lazaro at bull.net
   Cory Spitz           Cray           spitzcor at cray.com
   John Carrier         Cray           carrier at cray.com
   Alex Kulyavtsev      FNAL           aik at fnal.gov
   Joshua Walgenbach    IU             jjw at indiana.edu
   Chris Morrone        LLNL           morrone2 at llnl.gov
   Mahmoud Hanafi       NASA Ames      mahmoud.hanafi at nasa.gov
   Andreas Dilger       Whamcloud      adilger at whamcloud.com
   Bryon Neitzel        Whamcloud      bryon at whamcloud.com
   Roman Grigoryev      Xyratex        roman_grigoryev at xyratex.com 
   Alexander Lezhoev    Xyratex        alexander_lezhoev at xyratex.com
   Nathan Rutman        Xyratex        nathan_rutman at xyratex.com
   Cheng Shao           Xyratex        cheng_shao at xyratex.com

Agenda:
   discuss requirements

discussion:
   Xyratex started by suggesting that the test suite included with every
   Lustre release needed reworking.  This led to a group conversation
   that focused on the following areas:
   
   1) refactor unused tests
      Test scripts have grown unwieldly and do not form a coherent
      test package.  As a result, there are some tests that are
      used regularly and others that ineffective and skipped.  We
      should remove the unused tests.
      
   2) create single test suite
      Each release has its own test suite and assumes that the client
      and server will use the same test version.  It is becoming common
      today to have different client/server versions.  In this case, it
      is unclear which tests from which release package should be used.
      Instead, we should have a single test suite that accommodates
      different combinations of client and server versions.  
      
   3) extract individual tests from the scripts
      Many of the tests are run as a suite.  There needs to be some
      mechanism to allow running components of the suite independently.
      To do this, we will need to make clear the dependencies of the
      subtests so that users know a test can be run only after another
      component of the test has executed.  Also mentioned was the need
      for a common header on all test results to facilitate
      post-processing.
      
   4) client failure shouldn't stop the tests
      The goal is never to have test failures, nonethelees failures
      currently can stall test progress.  The suites need to be written
      to allow for client failures.  
      
   5) increase code coverage
      There are new tests that we should consider adding to the Lustre
      suite in order to increase code coverage. Suggestions were xfstest
      and some of the MPI tests. 

Going Forward
   We then discussed the process for moving the requirements list
   forward toward funding new projects. John and Dave have been trying
   to follow the steps we took last year.

   We need to update the requirements doc to include all the features
   addressed this year.  From this list, the TWG will create a short
   list that we ask our organizations to rank.  This list and the TWG's
   ranking would then be forwarded to the Board for consideration of
   funding.
   
   Chris suggested formalizing the process on the reflector. We agreed
   that discussion of the list can be done by email, but there is still
   value in the weekly group concalls.