On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24 2014, Grant Grundler wrote:
>> [dropping jcasse since this account was deleted after his internship ended]
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 24 2014, Grant Grundler wrote:
>> >> Jens, Ping?
>> >> You think you can still integrate the three patches from Juan?
>> >
>> > I think that would be manageable. But really a new feature (or feature
>> > modification) like this should be accompanies by a job file example for
>> > it. Care to provide one?
>>
>> Yes. Do you mind cloning a git repo?
>
> It was big :-)
Sorry...but I don't know how to check out a partial repo /o\
upside is you can take a look at all the fio job and autotest control
files we are using. :)
Gwendal is cleaning up our autotest so we only use fio-2.1.2 with
verify/integrity patches applied.
CL is pending for that:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/183364/
We are trying to make it easier for vendors to pick up these tests and run them.
In particular the "control.hwqual" autotest file.
...
>> BTW, Verification is failing on the 1m_stress control file...working
>> on that now:
>> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=337651
>>
>> I suspect it's a problem of the control file though since we are
>> getting this warning:
>> "Multiple writers may overwrite blocks that belong to other jobs.
>> This can cause verification failures."
>
> Yes, with 8 jobs going, they are going to be stomping on each others
> blocks potentially.
Yeah - that was my guess too - which means the warning is helpful.
Just to confirm: with numjobs=1, verify completes successfully.
> I queued up the 3 patches,
Awesome - thanks! :)
> but I killed the --verify-only command line
> switch. Seems unneeded, might as well just use the job option for that.
Please reconsider. We currently use --verify. See hardware_StorageFio.py:
hardware_StorageFio/hardware_StorageFio.py:
('8k_async_randwrite', ['--verifyonly'])
I want to re-use the same job file to describe the workload but
override the "write" stage to not be executed. Just perform verify. I
don't care what the option is called as long as I can reuse the fio
job file.
Having to clone a job file and make sure both files specify the same
things is possible but provides the opportunity for simple, stupid
mistakes. Adding --verify option eliminates that opportunity and means
we have one less fio job file to maintain....note we have quite a few
already.
thanks!
grant
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
