On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Sebastian Kayser <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * 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? If you use a sequential write fio job to lay the file out you should see the progress bar. > > 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 -- 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
