Not sure if this will help, but I use the following to prep multiple
4TB drives at the same time in a little over an hour. Is it inelegant,
yes, but it works for me.
globalFIOParameters="--offset=0 --ioengine=libaio --invalidate=1
--group_reporting --direct=1 --thread --refill_buffers --norandommap
--randrepeat=0 --allow_mounted_write=1 --output-format=json,normal"
# Drives should be FOB or LLF'd (if it's good to do that)
# LLF logic
# 128k Pre-Condition
# Write to entire disk
for i in `ls -1 /dev/nvme*n1`
do
size=$(fdisk -l | grep ${i} | awk -F "," '{ print $2 }' | awk '{
print $1 }')
./fio --name=PreconditionPass1of3 --filename=${i} --iodepth=$iodepth
--bs=128k --rw=write --size=${size} --fill_device=1
$globalFIOParameters &
done
wait
# Read entire disk
for i in `ls -1 /dev/nvme*n1`
do
size=$(fdisk -l | grep ${i} | awk -F "," '{ print $2 }' | awk '{
print $1 }')
./fio --name=PreconditionPass2of3 --filename=${i} --iodepth=$iodepth
--bs=128k --rw=read --size=${size} --fill_device=1
$globalFIOParameters &
done
wait
# Write to entire disk one last time
for i in `ls -1 /dev/nvme*n1`
do
size=$(fdisk -l | grep ${i} | awk -F "," '{ print $2 }' | awk '{
print $1 }')
./fio --name=PreconditionPass3of3 --filename=${i} --iodepth=$iodepth
--bs=128k --rw=write --size=${size} --fill_device=1
$globalFIOParameters &
done
wait
# Check 128k steady-state
for i in `ls -1 /dev/nvme*n1`
do
./fio --name=SteadyState --filename=${i} --iodepth=16 --numjobs=16
--bs=4k --rw=read --ss_dur=1800 --ss=iops_slope:0.3% --runtime=24h
$globalFIOParameters &
done
wait
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 9:13 AM Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:00 AM Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:36 PM Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:00 PM Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:29 PM Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:04 PM Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:29 PM Gruher, Joseph R
> > > > > > <joseph.r.gruher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > Mauricio Tavares
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 7:51 AM
> > > > > > > > To: fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > Subject: CPUs, threads, and speed
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's say I have a config file to preload drive that looks like this (stolen from
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/intel/fiovisualizer/blob/master/Workloads/Precondition/fill
> > > > > > > > _4KRandom_NVMe.ini)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [global]
> > > > > > > > name=4k random write 4 ios in the queue in 32 queues
> > > > > > > > filename=/dev/nvme0n1
> > > > > > > > ioengine=libaio
> > > > > > > > direct=1
> > > > > > > > bs=4k
> > > > > > > > rw=randwrite
> > > > > > > > iodepth=4
> > > > > > > > numjobs=32
> > > > > > > > buffered=0
> > > > > > > > size=100%
> > > > > > > > loops=2
> > > > > > > > randrepeat=0
> > > > > > > > norandommap
> > > > > > > > refill_buffers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [job1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is taking a ton of time, like days to go. Is there anything I can do to speed it
> > > > > > > > up?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you say preload, do you just want to write in the full capacity of the drive?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that preload here means what in SSD world is called drive
> > > > > > preconditioning. It means bringing a fresh drive into steady mode
> > > > > > where it gives you the true performance in production over months of
> > > > > > use rather than the unrealistic fresh drive random write IOPS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A sequential workload with larger blocks will be faster,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, you cannot get the job done by sequential writes since it doesn't
> > > > > > populate FTL translation tables like random writes do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As to taking a ton, the rule of thumb is to give the SSD 2xcapacity
> > > > > > worth of random writes. At today speeds, that should take just a
> > > > > > couple of hours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > When you say 2xcapacity worth of random writes, do you mean just
> > > > > setting size=200%?
> > > >
> > > > Right.
> > > >
> > > Then I wonder what I am doing wrong now. I changed the config file to
> > >
> > > [root@testbox tests]# cat preload.conf
> > > [global]
> > > name=4k random write 4 ios in the queue in 32 queues
> > > ioengine=libaio
> > > direct=1
> > > bs=4k
> > > rw=randwrite
> > > iodepth=4
> > > numjobs=32
> > > buffered=0
> > > size=200%
> > > loops=2
> > > random_generator=tausworthe64
> > > thread=1
> > >
> > > [job1]
> > > filename=/dev/nvme0n1
> > > [root@testbox tests]#
> > >
> > > but when I run it, now it spits out much larger eta times:
> > >
> > > Jobs: 32 (f=32): [w(32)][0.0%][w=382MiB/s][w=97.7k IOPS][eta
> > > 16580099d:14h:55m:27s]]
> >
> > Size is set on per thread basis, so you're doing 32x200%x2 loops=128
> > drive capacities here.
> >
> > Also, using 32 threads doesn't improve anything. 2 (and even one)
> > threads with qd=128 will push the drive
> > to its limits.
> >
> Update: so I redid the config file a bit to pass some of the
> arguments from command line, and cut down number of jobs and loops.
> And I ran it again, this time sequential write to the drive I have not
> touched to see how fast it was going to go. My eta is still
> astronomical:
>
> [root@testbox tests]# cat preload_fio.conf
> [global]
> name=4k random
> ioengine=${ioengine}
> direct=1
> bs=${bs_size}
> rw=${iotype}
> iodepth=4
> numjobs=1
> buffered=0
> size=200%
> loops=1
>
> [job1]
> filename=${devicename}
> [root@testbox tests]# devicename=/dev/nvme1n1 ioengine=libaio
> iotype=write bs_size=128k ~/dev/fio/fio ./preload_fio.conf
> job1: (g=0): rw=write, bs=(R) 128KiB-128KiB, (W) 128KiB-128KiB, (T)
> 128KiB-128KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=4
> fio-3.17-68-g3f1e
> Starting 1 process
> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [W(1)][0.0%][w=1906MiB/s][w=15.2k IOPS][eta 108616d:00h:00m:24s]
>
> > Regards,
> > Andrey
> > >
> > > Compare with what I was getting with size=100%
> > >
> > > Jobs: 32 (f=32): [w(32)][10.8%][w=301MiB/s][w=77.0k IOPS][eta 06d:13h:56m:51s]]
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Andrey
> > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [global]
> > > > > > > ioengine=libaio
> > > > > > > thread=1
> > > > > > > direct=1
> > > > > > > bs=128k
> > > > > > > rw=write
> > > > > > > numjobs=1
> > > > > > > iodepth=128
> > > > > > > size=100%
> > > > > > > loops=2
> > > > > > > [job00]
> > > > > > > filename=/dev/nvme0n1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or if you have a use case where you specifically want to write it in with 4K blocks, you could probably increase your queue depth way beyond 4 and see improvement in performance, and you probably don't want to specify norandommap if you're trying to hit every block on the device.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Joe
