On Fri, Jan 24 2014, Grant Grundler wrote: > 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. Why not just use an environment variable, like you do for other things? Then just have: verify_only=${VERIFY_ONLY} and you could easily reuse the same job file. -- 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
