From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [95.166.99.235] ([95.166.99.235]:57830 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751070Ab1HCHRG (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 03:17:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4E38F5F1.6010502@kernel.dk> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:17:05 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Measuring IOPS (solved, I think) References: <201107291737.40463.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <201108021632.00600.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <4E38549F.5080601@kernel.dk> (sfid-20110802_231129_498896_C6557942) <201108022328.52415.Martin@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: <201108022328.52415.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: fio@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Steigerwald Cc: fio@vger.kernel.org On 2011-08-02 23:28, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Dienstag, 2. August 2011 schrieben Sie: >> That's a long email! The stonewall should be put in the job section >> that has to wait for previous jobs. So, ala: >> >> [job1] >> something >> >> [job2] >> stonewall # will wait for job1 to finish >> something >> >> [job3] >> something # will run in parallel with job2 >> >> [job4] >> stonewall # will run when job2+3 are finished >> something >> >> If that's not the case, something is broken. A quick test here seems to >> show that it works. > > Its documented. From the manpage that I read several times by now: > > Wait for preceding jobs in the job file to exit before starting this one. > stonewall implies new_group. > > > Somehow despite my reading of manpage, README, HOWTO I came to the thought > that it tells fio to wait for the current job to finish, thus I had the > stonewall options misordered. > > I expect that it works exactly as you said and try it this way. Instead of > omitting the last stonewall option in my iops job file I could omit the > first for the first job. Cause the first job does not need to wait for a > previous job. Good, that makes me feel a little better :-) Perhaps the name isn't that great? I'll gladly put in an alias for that option, "wait_for_previous" or "barrier" or something like that. Fence? -- Jens Axboe