It looks like it's working great! I haven't found any problems in any of the cases I've tried, and I'll let you know if I find any issues as I work on more test cases. Thanks again for the help and quick turn-around, Phillip Chen On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/29/2017 07:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 11/29/2017 06:37 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 11/29/2017 01:58 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> I'll take a look at adding absolute zoning, should be pretty >>>> trivial. >>> >>> Quick and dirty here, can you see if this works with your magic >>> script? >>> >>> Basically you just do: >>> >>> random_distribution=zoned_abs:60/100m:10/200m:30/700m >>> >>> like you would for 'zoned' - the first is a percentage, the >>> other part is a size. So the above would be: >>> >>> - 60% of accesss to the first 100M >>> - 10% of access to the next 200M >>> - 30% of access to the next 700m >>> >>> No checking for whether or not we exceed device/file size or anything >>> like that in this version, but everything else should work with the >>> existing code pretty nicely. Not tested... >> >> Added documentation, and modified your script do have: >> >> dist_str = "zoned_abs:50/35770m:10/286166m:40/35770m" >> >> for a 375G nvme drive I have, this yields: >> >> histogram percents = [25.011592135525543, 25.014596077621864, 0.6177337336535484, 0.6206606515935528, 0.6198133858740779, 0.6175796853409167, 0.6187350476856551, 0.6266685357861933, 0.6370667968888403, 0.6393004974220015, 0.6279009222872477, 0.6302886711330408, 0.6230484004393458, 0.6274387773493523, 0.6131122842745942, 0.6258982942230342, 0.614036574150385, 0.6185809993730234, 19.971208370369116, 20.02474015900867] >> histogram edges = [36629084.0, 73258168.0, 109887252.0, 146516336.0, 183145420.0, 219774504.0, 256403588.0, 293032672.0, 329661756.0, 366290840.0, 402919924.0, 439549008.0, 476178092.0, 512807176.0, 549436260.0, 586065344.0, 622694428.0, 659323512.0, 695952596.0, 732581680.0] >> zoned_abs:50/35770m:10/286166m:40/35770m >> >> which looks correct to me - 50% in the first two buckets, which is defined as >> the first 10% of the drive. 40% in the last two buckets, which is the last 10% >> of the drive. And the rest in the middle, which should add up to 10 (quick >> eyeballing says it does). >> >> Updated patch below. Only change is the added documentation, and a check >> for exceeding device/file size. > > Did some basic testing, and it seems fine to me. I've committed it, so > may be easier for you to just git update and run with that. > > Do let me know when you test it and what your findings are, so we can > ensure that it works the way it should for all cases. > > > -- > 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
