On 2011-08-02 23:28, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Dienstag, 2. August 2011 schrieben Sie: >> That's a long email! The stonewall should be put in the job section >> that has to wait for previous jobs. So, ala: >> >> [job1] >> something >> >> [job2] >> stonewall # will wait for job1 to finish >> something >> >> [job3] >> something # will run in parallel with job2 >> >> [job4] >> stonewall # will run when job2+3 are finished >> something >> >> If that's not the case, something is broken. A quick test here seems to >> show that it works. > > Its documented. From the manpage that I read several times by now: > > Wait for preceding jobs in the job file to exit before starting this one. > stonewall implies new_group. > > > Somehow despite my reading of manpage, README, HOWTO I came to the thought > that it tells fio to wait for the current job to finish, thus I had the > stonewall options misordered. > > I expect that it works exactly as you said and try it this way. Instead of > omitting the last stonewall option in my iops job file I could omit the > first for the first job. Cause the first job does not need to wait for a > previous job. Good, that makes me feel a little better :-) Perhaps the name isn't that great? I'll gladly put in an alias for that option, "wait_for_previous" or "barrier" or something like that. Fence? -- 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
