Flexible I/O Tester development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Akash Verma <akashv@google.com>
Cc: Michael Bella <mbella@google.com>, Caio Villela <caio@google.com>,
	Allen Schade <aschade@google.com>, fio <fio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Running a separate fio process for each disk?
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:58:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <566090B8.60302@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFFT=Uks8j+K7M0dfT0tS2aiRTOHCqu0S_3-DnKY2zL-K33T7g@mail.gmail.com>

Perfect! Thanks for reporting and re-testing.


On 12/03/2015 11:54 AM, Akash Verma wrote:
> Jens, I confirmed that the issue is not seen with the latest FIO (I used
> version fio-2.2.12-15-gcdab).
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk
> <mailto:axboe@kernel.dk>> wrote:
>
>     No worries, I know this week is a bit more problematic than usual.
>     I'll hold off on the new release until I know.
>
>
>
>     On 11/24/2015 01:51 PM, Akash Verma wrote:
>
>         Sorry for not getting back - I didn't get a chance to try the latest
>         git, and I'm off on vacation soon; I'm ccing Michael and Caio who
>         might have a chance to try it out before Thursday. Michael or Caio,
>         could you try run the two things Jens asked (the cpuclock test using
>         the FIO we've been currently using as well as the latest from
>         Git; and
>         the regular multi-process FIO run with the latest git)?
>
>         On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk
>         <mailto:axboe@kernel.dk>> wrote:
>
>             Did you try current -git yet? I think it should work for
>             both scenarios.
>             It's a silly bug, would be great to have confirmation that
>             it's fixed. Then
>             I'll spin a new release.
>
>
>
>             On 11/20/2015 05:21 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>
>                 And finally, there's a potential fix, if you run commit
>                 99afcdb53dc3 or later. So please do try that as well, and
>                 see if that behaves any better for you.
>
>
>                 On 11/20/2015 05:03 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>
>                     Hi,
>
>                     OK, I see. Can you pull the latest -git, and then
>                     run fio
>                     --cpuclock-test on one of the boxes where you see
>                     the issue? It should
>                     have commit 5896d827e1e2 or later.
>
>
>                     On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Akash Verma
>                     <akashv@google.com <mailto:akashv@google.com>
>                     <mailto:akashv@google.com
>                     <mailto:akashv@google.com>>> wrote:
>
>                           Hi Jens,
>                           The issue is not seen with non-cpu clock
>                     sources, or when using a
>                           single process (with individual threads, the
>                     only config I tried). We
>                           only see the issue when using multiple
>                     processes and the cpu clock
>                           source.
>
>                           On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Jens Axboe
>                     <axboe@kernel.dk <mailto:axboe@kernel.dk>
>                           <mailto:axboe@kernel.dk
>                     <mailto:axboe@kernel.dk>>> wrote:
>                            > On 11/20/2015 12:37 PM, Caio Villela wrote:
>                            >>
>                            >> Hello Allen and Jens,
>                            >>
>                            >> Sorry for the long output, this is just in
>                     case you want the
>                           details.
>                            >> Here is a simple explanation for the
>                     problem. I want to run a 15
>                           minute
>                            >> random write, using 1 Meg requests, and
>                     measure throughput and
>                           latency.
>                            >> What seems to be the problem is that if
>                     the test system has a
>                     large
>                            >> number of drives - the system that I am
>                     testing here has 28
>                     drives -
>                            >> then the time accounting seems to go bad
>                     for some of the
>                     processes.
>                            >> What you see below is that during the 15
>                     minutes from start, all
>                           disks
>                            >> are getting hit the same, as they should.
>                     Then, after 15
>                           minutes, there
>                            >> are 15 drives that are still running....
>                     after 5 minutes over the
>                            >> specified 15 minutes, there is still one
>                     drive running. Then
>                           looking at
>                            >> the amount of IOs sent to each drive, the
>                     ones that ran on that
>                           excess
>                            >> time have much more IOs. FIO still reports
>                     that all drives ran
>                           for 15
>                            >> minutes, although some ran for more than
>                     20 minutes.
>                            >>
>                            >> We will attempt to run a single process
>                     instead of 28 instances
>                           of FIO
>                            >> to see if this goes away.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            > Could you also check if adding
>                     clocksource=gettimeofday makes any
>                            > difference? This sounds very odd.
>                            >
>                            > Assuming this was run with fio -git?
>                            >
>                            >
>                            > --
>                            > Jens Axboe
>                            >
>                           > --
>                           > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
>                     "unsubscribe fio" in
>                           > the body of a message
>                     tomajordomo@vger.kernel.org
>                     <mailto:tomajordomo@vger.kernel.org>
>                     <mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>                     <mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org>>
>                           > More majordomo info
>                     athttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>                     <http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             --
>             Jens Axboe
>
>
>
>     --
>     Jens Axboe
>
>


-- 
Jens Axboe



      reply	other threads:[~2015-12-03 18:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CADp+U7ibiKciX8_cpzGzob4oL-UF-H+W7kYuiujovD0ba=hM6A@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found] ` <56464ACC.9030605@kernel.dk>
2015-11-13 22:04   ` Running a separate fio process for each disk? Allen Schade
2015-11-13 22:06     ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-20 18:28       ` Allen Schade
2015-11-20 19:37         ` Caio Villela
2015-11-20 19:50           ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-20 22:20             ` Akash Verma
2015-11-21  0:03               ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-21  0:21                 ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-24 15:51                   ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-24 20:51                     ` Akash Verma
2015-11-25  1:18                       ` Jens Axboe
2015-12-03 18:54                         ` Akash Verma
2015-12-03 18:58                           ` Jens Axboe [this message]

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=566090B8.60302@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=akashv@google.com \
    --cc=aschade@google.com \
    --cc=caio@google.com \
    --cc=fio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbella@google.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