Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-10 Thread Mel Gorman
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:09:20AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I'd _like_ to expand fio for cases we come up with that aren't possible, as > > there's already a ton of measurements that are taken, especially around > > latencies. > > To be properly useful it needs to support more than just fio

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread Josef Bacik
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:09:20AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:00:51AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:17:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > > Integrating into fstests means

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread Dave Chinner
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:00:51AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:17:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > Integrating into fstests means it will be immediately available to > > > > all fs developers, it'll

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:54:16AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > I purposefully used as little as possible, just json and sqlite, and I tried > to > use as little python3 isms as possible. Any rpm based systems should have > these > libraries already installed, I agree that using any of the PyPI

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread David Sterba
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:09:57PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > One thing that comes up a lot every LSF is the fact that we have no general > way > that we do performance testing. Every fs developer has a set of scripts or > things that they run with varying degrees of consistency, but nothing

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread Josef Bacik
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:17:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:51:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:09:57PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > One

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread Josef Bacik
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 11:43:35PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > Probably should have led with that shouldn't I have? There's nothing > > keeping me > > from doing it, but I didn't want to try and shoehorn in a python thing

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:54:34PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > I have no problem either if python is really needed, after all this is a > very useful infrastructure improvement. But the python version problem > brought up by Ted made me a bit nervous, we need to work that round > carefully. > >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-09 Thread Eryu Guan
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:17:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:51:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:09:57PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > One

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-08 Thread Dave Chinner
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:51:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:09:57PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > One thing that comes up a lot every LSF is the fact that we have no > > > general

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-08 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Probably should have led with that shouldn't I have? There's nothing keeping > me > from doing it, but I didn't want to try and shoehorn in a python thing into > fstests. I need python to do the sqlite and the json parsing to

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-08 Thread Josef Bacik
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:51:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:09:57PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Hello, > > > > One thing that comes up a lot every LSF is the fact that we have no general > > way > > that we do performance testing. Every fs developer has a set of

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-08 Thread Dave Chinner
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:09:57PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Hello, > > One thing that comes up a lot every LSF is the fact that we have no general > way > that we do performance testing. Every fs developer has a set of scripts or > things that they run with varying degrees of consistency,

[ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

2017-10-06 Thread Josef Bacik
Hello, One thing that comes up a lot every LSF is the fact that we have no general way that we do performance testing. Every fs developer has a set of scripts or things that they run with varying degrees of consistency, but nothing central that we all use. I for one am getting tired of finding