On 7 July 2015 at 22:17, Alireza Haghdoost <alireza@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Grant, > > Thanks for the reply. These additions to FIO that has been done by > your team in my opinion are truly valuable. However, as you mentioned > it is sufficient but not intended for a robots data integrity check. I > am planing to propose some changes and additions to the verification > frameworks in a couple of days. It would be great if I have your > attention and comments on that. I guess what might be needed to cope with the "stale overwrite / data from another part of the disk" scenario is something akin to dt's pattern=iot (see http://www.scsifaq.org/RMiller_Tools/ftp/dt/dt-UsersGuide.pdf ) so each block has a different pattern based on LBA. You still need to change the seed of the LBA based pattern on each pass and you'd need to know what THAT seed was if you abort partway through a run if you wanted to verify things later... The advantage writing an exact "headerless" pattern has is that it can verify patterns written by other tools (this makes it easier to verify the operation of commands like WRITE SAME without having to synthesise a header). -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- 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
