From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:39804 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751593AbZFTPdl (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:33:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:33:44 +0200 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Ques on FIO output (how to interpret iops) Message-ID: <20090620153343.GN31415@kernel.dk> References: <7efa8a7d0906191519l5b268430o3ec4c96e60dfcb7a@mail.gmail.com> <20090620062702.GI31415@kernel.dk> <6863f0c90906200621l48000095xc46ef1fbcfc159d8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6863f0c90906200621l48000095xc46ef1fbcfc159d8@mail.gmail.com> Sender: fio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: fio@vger.kernel.org To: John Cagle Cc: Learner Study , "fio@vger.kernel.org" On 20/06/2009, at 15.21, John Cagle wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Jens Axboe > wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19 2009, Learner Study wrote: > > Hi: > > > > How do I calculate total IOPS done by different FIO threads/jobs? > > > > Following is output from FIO (with two threads)... > > > > Each thread shows "bw" and "iops" numbers. Towards the end of > output log, > > there is "aggrb" which is sum of individual "bw" of threads, but > "io" field > > (3 line from the bottom of output below) doesn't seem to be sum of > > individual thread iops.... > > > > For example, Thread_1 has bw: 15k iops: 29366 > > Thread_2 has bw: 15k iops: 29445 > > But, the summary towards the end (third line from bottom of > output), says > > "io=1,723MiB, aggrb=30,105KiB/s". > > > > In this aggrb is good but io doesn't match up (it should be > 58781) ! Can > > someone please educate what am I missing? > > Can you try a newer version? If the problem is still there, the best > way > to get it fixed is to send my a simple job file that reproduces the > problem, and then I can easily fix it for you. > > I thought the "io=" summary at the end was the total amount of I/O > performed (in megabytes), not the total number of IOPS. It is, you are correct. Seems I misread the problem.