* Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2010-11-10 20:52, Sebastian Kayser wrote: > > * John Cagle <jcagle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If the disk is 2TB, then your 100GB test is only using 5% of it-- thus > >> your observed IOPS will be a lot better than expected due to > >> short-stroking. Right? > > > > I don't know. The inital 80 IOPS (observed over about 2 full minutes) > > made me believe that 100GB would have covered a high enough percentage > > to at least eliminate track-to-track seeks. Are short-stroked seeks also > > that much faster compared to average seek times? And where would the > > steady increase in IOPS during the test come from? > > > > But you are definitly right when it comes to the test setup. I just > > started a test with size=1800g. Looking foward to what that will show. > > If you have the full device, you could just test on that instead of > using a filesystem and file. Just to get more 'raw' performance. Thanks. This also turned out to be much more feasible for "quick" test turn-around. As soon as I ran the tests with size=1800g it took ages to prepare the test file (~30 MB/s towards the iSCSI target) and one disk even quit on me over night. When staying within the realm of file based testing, can fio determine and display the progress (think: progress bar or percentage) when it prepares the test file? Sebastian -- 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
