Hi Neto, I am ok. Here are the details. IOMeter (version - 2006.07.27): QDepth = 256 Worker = 1 Block Size = 512B and 4KB Runtime = 1 minute Access = SeqRd, RanRd, SeqWr, and RanWr OS Platform = Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise Server 64-bit FIO (version - 2.0.14): IODepth = 256 Thread = 1 Block Size = 512B and 4KB Runtime = 1 minute Access = SeqRd, RanRd, SeqWr, and RanWr OS Platform = Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise Server 64-bit But I am currently running a test to validate the previous results. Thanks, Ritchie Babaylan Advance CORE Engineering BiTMICRO Networks, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Neto, Antonio Jose Rodrigues [mailto:Antonio.Jose.Rodrigues.Neto@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:43 AM To: Ritchie Babaylan; fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Thread vs Worker Question Hi Ritchie This is neto from Brazil How are you? Jobs on FIO is similar to workers on IOmeter. Could you please more details about jobs and numbers? All the best neto NetApp - I love this company! ________________________________________ From: fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Ritchie Babaylan [Ritchie.Babaylan@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 6:38 PM To: fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Thread vs Worker Question I am using both IOMeter and FIO in one of our test setup here but the results I got on IOPS are different for the two tools. I use the same depth, access specification and the mixture between read and write. What I see is the difference between using thread in fio and worker in iometer? Can anyone point me the difference between thread and worker? N�����r��y���b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+���������ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v��� ����zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?����&�)ߢf ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�������^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
