Den tors 3 mars 2022 kl 18:10 skrev Mihai Popescu <[email protected]>: > > > https://openports.pl/path/benchmarks/fio > > To test perf on many small IO (measuring iops basically) run: > > > > fio --name=random-write --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=2 --size=1g > > --iodepth=16 --runtime=60 --time_based --end_fsync=1 >
> Run status group 0 (all jobs): > WRITE: bw=12.5MiB/s (13.1MB/s), 6370KiB/s-6438KiB/s > (6523kB/s-6592kB/s), io=754MiB (791MB), run=60305-60305msec > > > > To test large-IO perf: > > > > fio --name=random-write --rw=write --bs=1M --numjobs=1 --size=1g > > --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --end_fsync=1 > WRITE: bw=18.9MiB/s (19.8MB/s), 18.9MiB/s-18.9MiB/s > (19.8MB/s-19.8MB/s), io=1138MiB (1193MB), run=60364-60364msec > > > > > Look for the result in the post-run report, > > for small IO it can be > > write: IOPS=37.8k, BW=148MiB/s (155MB/s) > > and for larger writes > > write: IOPS=253, BW=253MiB/s (266MB/s) > > > > Not really like your report, did you run it on another OS or cited from > memory? No, ran it on an openbsd VM. Still, there would have been absolutely zero chance that my random setup would match yours exactly so it was not meant as a measuring stick on what is everyones acceptable level, only how to interpret differences between large IO throughput and small IO latency/iops values. > Besides this, are my values too low or just the expected ones? It seems the throughput is bad. The small IO test showed good numbers for iops, but the second test (and I guess other people's suggestion to try dd from /dev/zero) will show that you seem to have a "thin wire" from the drive to the computer, it seeks fast but transfers data slowly. You might want to test the large IO test again with iodepth 1 and only one thread just to see if it is caused by the drive jumping between serving data from different places, so asking for a single stream might give you the "optimal" transfer speed for a non-busy drive. The numbers you did get were somewhat like when I bought an IDE->CompactFlash adapter for my firewalls. The CF disk had "zero" seek times which is good for cvs updates and so on, but still a low ovreall transfer speed since CFs were just not anything like modern ssd/nvme flash drives. Also, IDE being what it is puts limits on concurrency when it comes to IO. -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
