From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: IOzone testing Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:08:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4ABE2E86.5010708@att.net> References: <4ABE0553.3090502@att.net> <4ABE0AD7.7000904@att.net> <4ABE13D3.2080809@att.net> <4ABE2704.6030607@att.net> Reply-To: NILFS Users mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: NILFS Users mailing list J=E9r=F4me Poulin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > = >> J=E9r=F4me Poulin wrote: >> >> Cool program - I will definitely try this. >> >> So, let me summarize what I think I should do to test nilfs with >> IOzone without the impact of the checkpoints and without filling >> up the space. >> >> - Run IOzone without cleanerd running to minimize the >> impact of checkpoints on IO performance. >> - Assuming I don't fill up the file system, after a run of >> IOzone, I need to run cleanerd but put the protection >> period to something very small (e.g. 1 second) to reclaim the >> space. >> - Shut down cleanerd again and run another IOzone test. >> (rinse and repeat) >> >> Does this sound about right? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Jeff >> >> = > That sounds right, either run cleanerd or mkfs the partition again for > faster results ;) > = Good point about using mkfs. :) I think I'm going to run two test: (1) using the process above, (2) setting the protection period to 1 (maybe 0). Let's see what the differences are. Thanks! Jeff