Jepsen, Hermitage, etc. testing?

[dumblob]

What would you like to be added:

Jepsen, Hermitage, etc. test results for every (incl. minor) release (ideally automated by CI).

Why is this needed:

Jepsen tests are the very minimum ("entry-level") in the today's DB world. Without Jepsen a DB "does not exist" (seen through the "production SW" lenses).

[davies]

The Jepsen test should be run against the DB directly, not against JuiceFS, which is just an application on top of the DB.

For JuiceFS, we already have a lots of file system test suite.

[dumblob]

@davies thank you for quickly chiming in. I am certain this is a huge misunderstanding.

Jepsen is an independent test suite for any end-user-facing distributed system storing data. If JuiceFS wants to become trustworthy an independent recognized testing is a must.

Therefore I am also not sure why this issue got converted to a discussion. Could you convert it back and link these new comments in the newly (re-)created issue? Thank you!

[davies]

Jepsen is an independent test suite for any end-user-facing distributed system storing data. If JuiceFS wants to become trustworthy an independent recognized testing is a must.

Jepsen can be used to test any distributed system, the published test results are mostly transactional databases, I can't find any distributed file system has conducted a Jepsen test. So we are not sure Jepsen is the right tool to test distributed file system in practice. All the well-known file systems (HDFS, LustreFS, GPFS, MooseFS) have not done the Jepsen test, so we think it's not a MUST.

Therefore I am also not sure why this issue got converted to a discussion. Could you convert it back and link these new comments in the newly (re-)created issue? Thank you!

Currently, we use issue as the TODO list, and I'm not sure how to do a Jepsen test against JuiceFS, so convert it into discussion. Once we can figure out what's the things to do, then we can move it back to issues.