Hi, The workload I used was SEQ_MX 70/30 BS 128 QD 128 FIO used 3.1 Drive SKU = 2TB On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:43 AM, abhishek koundal <akoundal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > The workload I used was SEQ_MX 70/30 BS 128 QD 128 > FIO used 3.1 > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 6 March 2018 at 19:02, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 6 March 2018 at 18:52, abhishek koundal <akoundal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> All >> >> If the size parameter is not given for the runs, how does the tool >> >> decide what % (LBA span) needs to be written on the drive? >> > >> > It will query the disk/file for its size (but this depends on the >> > ioengine being able to do that and not all do/can). >> > >> >> Reason I am asking as I see different data for the same workloads when >> >> size=100% and no size parameter used. >> > >> > Hmm this sounds like it might be due to a rounding issue - what size >> > is your disk and what job were you running? >> >> https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/master/filesetup.c#L1039-L1048 shows >> that when in setup_files() using a size set in percent will round the >> io_size down to the minimum block size whereas not setting size at all >> looks like it will pass the determined size straight through >> unrounded. I'm not sure what job you would see the difference on - >> perhaps one that did backwards I/O? >> >> -- >> Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ > > > > > -- > Life is too short for silly things so invest your time in some productive > outputs!! -- Life is too short for silly things so invest your time in some productive outputs!! -- 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
