Yes, that makes sense for a randwrite operation. But is it acceptable to allow norandommap with verify for read/randomread only operations with no writes involved. The case Iam specifically interested in is doing sequential writes followed by sequential reads (with verify) and then randomaccess reads (with verify). For a small enough block size on a large enough drive the norandommap takes up too much memory. Thanks -radha On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18 2009, Radha Ramachandran wrote: >> Hi, >> Is there a reason why there is a hard rule to disable verify when >> norandommap option is also set? > > Without a map of the blocks that have been written already, you might > overwrite full or partial blocks before you are done. That would cause > verify to fail. See the 'norandommap' explanation in the HOWTO as well. > > -- > Jens Axboe > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
