On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/09/2015 02:39 AM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Gwendal Grignou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> When commands when requeued for the verify operation, >>> their start time was not reset, resulting in bogus latency graphs. >> >> >> Does it really make sense to account for the verification pass in the >> latency profile? > > > Why not? If you are doing a full write then verification, you get a full set > of separate read and write latencies.
I'd rather get them on a per-pass basis. Imagine an r/w workload being done with verification pass (just to be on the safe side): I'd rather keep read-only verification pass latencies separate from the primary workload latency profile. YMMW :). > > -- > Jens Axboe > -- 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
