I've just uploaded fio-2.2.7+ Windows installers and zip files that have
this performance fix. See http://bluestop.org/fio/ . The '+' just
means I didn't build against the tagged 2.2.7 sources.
--
Bruce
On 5/7/2015 11:10 AM, Iuliu Rus wrote:
Not sure what validation details you need...
C:\>C:\fio-2.1.12-x64\fio --name=benchmark --rw=randread --ioengine=windowsaio -
-direct=1 --time_based --ramp_time=10 --runtime=90 --thread --numjobs=1 --invali
date=1 --filename=\\.\PhysicalDrive1 --nrfiles=1 --size=16G --bs=4k --iodepth
=128 --create_on_open=0 --norandommap --sync=0 --end_fsync=0 --randrepeat=1 --di
sable_lat=1 --disable_clat=1 --disable_slat=1 --disable_bw_measurement=1
benchmark: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=windowsaio, iodept
h=128
fio-2.2.6
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [11.0% done] [3155KB/0KB/0KB /s] [788/0/0 iops] [eta 01m:2
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [12.0% done] [203.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [52.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [13.0% done] [211.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [14.0% done] [210.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [53.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [15.0% done] [218.1MB/0KB/0KB /s] [56.5K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [16.0% done] [221.1MB/0KB/0KB /s] [56.6K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
C:\>C:\my_fio\fio --name=benchmark --rw=randread --ioengine=windowsaio --direct=
1 --time_based --ramp_time=10 --runtime=90 --thread --numjobs=1 --invalidate=1
--filename=\\.\PhysicalDrive1 --nrfiles=1 --size=16G --bs=4k --iodepth=128 --c
reate_on_open=0 --norandommap --sync=0 --end_fsync=0 --randrepeat=1 --clocksourc
e=cpu
fio: clocksource=cpu may not be reliable
benchmark: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=windowsaio, iodept
h=128
fio-2.2.7-26-g77e7b
Starting 1 thread
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [11.0% done] [8977KB/0KB/0KB /s] [2244/0/0 iops] [eta 01m:
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [12.0% done] [366.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [93.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [13.0% done] [352.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [90.3K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [14.0% done] [373.1MB/0KB/0KB /s] [95.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 01
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Alireza Haghdoost <haghdoost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Did you guys reproduce exact the same IOMeter IOPS with
FIO on Windows ? Would you please provide more validation details ?
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 05/06/2015 12:35 PM, Iuliu Rus wrote:
FYI i have sent a pull request https://github.com/axboe/fio/pull/64
which makes fio on windows on par with iometer. The difference quite
big on our local flash machines (60k iops to 100k)
Thanks for fixing this up, it's been a pain point for quite a while!
--
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
--
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
