Hi, On 4 March 2018 at 21:50, Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm not using verify, so no idea re your question. That's the config > in question, with some (irrelevant) omissions. Thanks for including this - without it answering this type of question becomes a short in the dark. > [global] > thread=1 > group_reporting=1 > direct=1 > verify=0 > ramp_time=0 > > [precond] > numjobs=1 > iodepth=128 > rw=write > bs=128k > size=4g > > [randrw] > stonewall > numjobs=4 > iodepth=32 > rw=randrw > bs=4k > runtime=1m >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrey Kuzmin >> >> I see a run of the subj resulting in the second, time-based job (which is stonewalled to start after the size-based one) ending prematurely, with its lifetime apparently consumed by the size-based job. This used to work just a couple of years back ;). Am I missing something? runtime (http://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_doc.html#cmdoption-arg-runtime ) by itself sets the maximum amount of time a job will run for but it can exit earlier for other reasons (e.g. file size has been done). Perhaps you also wanted to add time_based (http://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_doc.html#cmdoption-arg-time-based ) ? That option says that the I/O should be looped if necessary until runtime is exceeded. -- 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
