Flexible I/O Tester development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: "Georg Schönberger" <gschoenberger@thomas-krenn.com>
Cc: fio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IO depth reported by Fio/blktrace/iowatcher
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:46:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <506BED4F.2010802@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <865760996.213912.1349247724514.JavaMail.root@thomas-krenn.com>

On 2012-10-03 09:02, Georg Schönberger wrote:
> Good Morning,
> 
> I have a short question about the used io depth reported by Fio/blktrace/iowatcher:
> If I am starting a test:
> # blktrace -d /dev/sde -o hdd &
> # fio --rw=read --name=wd --bs=1024k --direct=1 --filename=/dev/sde --offset=0 --runtime=300 --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=4
> [...]
>   IO depths    : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>      submit    : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
>      complete  : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
> [...]
> As seen above Fio is reporting 100% io depth 4. In contrast to that blktrace and iowatcher (cf. attached figure) revealing the following io depths (9 and 7):
> # blkparse hdd.blktrace.8
> [...]
> CPU8 (hdd):
>  Reads Queued:        9072,     4644MiB	 Writes Queued:           0,        0KiB
>  Read Dispatches:     9070,     4643MiB	 Write Dispatches:        0,        0KiB
>  Reads Requeued:         0		 Writes Requeued:         0
>  Reads Completed:     9072,     4644MiB	 Writes Completed:        0,        0KiB
>  Read Merges:            0,        0KiB	 Write Merges:            0,        0KiB
>  Read depth:             9
> [...]
> # iowatcher -t hdd.blktrace.8 -o wd.svg
> (showing an io depth of 7)
> 
> Where is this divergence concerning the io depths coming from? A short explanation would be great =)

You are using a relatively large block size (1024k) and that is why.
That will be broken into 512kb chunks usually, effectively almost
doubling the queue depth seen on the device side.

Fio reports the queue depth the way it sees it, on the submitting
application side. That may or may not be identical to what the device
sees. It could be higher, if the scheduler is throttling fio. Or it
could be lower, as in this case.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-03  8:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1873496499.213815.1349247144505.JavaMail.root@thomas-krenn.com>
2012-10-03  7:02 ` IO depth reported by Fio/blktrace/iowatcher Georg Schönberger
2012-10-03  7:46   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2012-10-03  7:54     ` Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=506BED4F.2010802@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=fio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gschoenberger@thomas-krenn.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox