I am pulling the windows drive from the computer and installing centos to run some FIO tests. I'll wait for a few minutes to see if you want me to test anything else on windows before I start. -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Sitsofe Wheeler [mailto:sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:15 PM To: David Hare <david.hare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>; fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: FIO windows One idea is that you are seeing the effect of trying to do I/O to a file that is not a multiple of the blocksize. In theory if you have size=1g and you have 9 files then each file ends up being 1024**3/9.0 ~ 119304647.1111111 big (see http://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_doc.html#cmdoption-arg-filename for where this is described). Could it be that Windows goes on to make a file that is smaller than what we were asking for? If this theory were right you might see a similar problem if you were only using 3 files. On 31 October 2017 at 22:06, David Hare <david.hare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes.. I made a typo when I changed it back, sorry. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sitsofe Wheeler [mailto:sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:05 PM > To: David Hare <david.hare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>; fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: FIO windows > > Yes that's right. Also previously did you mean you had set size=512m > even though you wrote size=512g ? > > On 31 October 2017 at 22:03, David Hare <david.hare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I assume you want me to change the size parameter with a 64k >> blocksize as everything is working with 16k blocksize? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sitsofe Wheeler [mailto:sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 2:54 PM >> To: David Hare <david.hare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>; fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: FIO windows >> >> Hi, >> >> Can you add unlink=1 and keep reducing the size parameter (e.g. down >> to 128m then down to 16m then down to 4m then down to 1m then down to >> 512k etc)? >> >> Can you attach the full output that's produced it fails with this >> reduced job? >> >> IF you are make the problem happen with very little I/O being done >> (i.e. the job bombs out after doing less than 1MiBytes worth of I/O) >> you can try adding --debug=all to the job and seeing if that offers >> any clues as to what the last thing it was doing was? >> >> On 31 October 2017 at 21:46, David Hare <david.hare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> It was ok with or without the colon, the size didn’t seem to make a >>> difference, but blocksize did.. see the commented block sizes below. >>> >>> fio2.fio >>> [global] >>> >>> ioengine=windowsaio >>> >>> ;blocksize=64k - error >>> ;blocksize=32k - error >>> ;blocksize=16k - no error >>> >>> blocksize=16k >>> >>> direct=1 >>> >>> thread >>> >>> size=512g >>> >>> >>> >>> time_based >>> runtime=10 >>> >>> [asdf] >>> filename=F\:\\testfile:G\:\\testfile:H\:\\testfile:I\:\\testfile:J\: >>> \ \ testfile:K\:\\testfile:L\:\\testfile:M\:\\testfile:P\:\\testfile >>> >>> Results: >>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>> READ: bw=141MiB/s (148MB/s), 141MiB/s-141MiB/s (148MB/s-148MB/s), >>> io=1413MiB (1481MB), run=10001-10001msec >>> >>> >>> -Dave > > -- > Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ > > > Disclaimer > > The information contained in this communication from the sender is > confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and > others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking > action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�������^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
