On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24 2014, Grant Grundler wrote: >> [dropping jcasse since this account was deleted after his internship ended] >> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 24 2014, Grant Grundler wrote: >> >> Jens, Ping? >> >> You think you can still integrate the three patches from Juan? >> > >> > I think that would be manageable. But really a new feature (or feature >> > modification) like this should be accompanies by a job file example for >> > it. Care to provide one? >> >> Yes. Do you mind cloning a git repo? > > It was big :-) Sorry...but I don't know how to check out a partial repo /o\ upside is you can take a look at all the fio job and autotest control files we are using. :) Gwendal is cleaning up our autotest so we only use fio-2.1.2 with verify/integrity patches applied. CL is pending for that: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/183364/ We are trying to make it easier for vendors to pick up these tests and run them. In particular the "control.hwqual" autotest file. ... >> BTW, Verification is failing on the 1m_stress control file...working >> on that now: >> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=337651 >> >> I suspect it's a problem of the control file though since we are >> getting this warning: >> "Multiple writers may overwrite blocks that belong to other jobs. >> This can cause verification failures." > > Yes, with 8 jobs going, they are going to be stomping on each others > blocks potentially. Yeah - that was my guess too - which means the warning is helpful. Just to confirm: with numjobs=1, verify completes successfully. > I queued up the 3 patches, Awesome - thanks! :) > but I killed the --verify-only command line > switch. Seems unneeded, might as well just use the job option for that. Please reconsider. We currently use --verify. See hardware_StorageFio.py: hardware_StorageFio/hardware_StorageFio.py: ('8k_async_randwrite', ['--verifyonly']) I want to re-use the same job file to describe the workload but override the "write" stage to not be executed. Just perform verify. I don't care what the option is called as long as I can reuse the fio job file. Having to clone a job file and make sure both files specify the same things is possible but provides the opportunity for simple, stupid mistakes. Adding --verify option eliminates that opportunity and means we have one less fio job file to maintain....note we have quite a few already. 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