On 2/17/20 9:02 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
iotest 40 works too long because of many discard opertion. On the same
I'm assuming you meant s/40/199/ here, as well as the typo fixes pointed
out by Andrey.
time, postcopy period is very short, in spite of all these efforts.
So, let
19.02.2020 17:33, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
On 17/02/2020 18:02, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
iotest 40 works too long because of many discard opertion. On the same
operations
At the same time
time, postcopy period is very short, in spite of all these efforts.
So, let's use less disca
On 19/02/2020 17:33, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
On 17/02/2020 18:02, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
iotest 40 works too long because of many discard opertion. On the same
operations
At the same time
time, postcopy period is very short, in spite of all these efforts.
So, let's use less
On 17/02/2020 18:02, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
iotest 40 works too long because of many discard opertion. On the same
operations
At the same time
time, postcopy period is very short, in spite of all these efforts.
So, let's use less discards (and with more interesting patterns) to
iotest 40 works too long because of many discard opertion. On the same
time, postcopy period is very short, in spite of all these efforts.
So, let's use less discards (and with more interesting patterns) to
reduce test timing. In the next commit we'll increase postcopy period.
Signed-off-by: Vlad
