On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > It's a feature. It allows you to run a write only workload, then run a later > identical workload as read only but verifying the previously written data. By unconditionally adding a "stale data" check, aren't we breaking that "feature"? Running a read-only workload won't know which type of workload was previously run (random vs mixed vs sequential writes). This puts the burden on the user to "reverse engineer" which read workload corresponds to the previous write workload. I'd prefer we break this feature and replace it with a "data rention check" parameter. It would be alot easier if one can run the exact same command line later but just add --data_retention_check to indicate it doesn't need to actually re-run the workload (reads or writes). How do you want to proceed? thanks, grant -- 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
