From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57235 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752537AbcG0BgR (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:36:17 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bSDle-0006mc-2q for fio@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:36:14 +0200 Received: from cpe-24-55-26-223.austin.res.rr.com ([24.55.26.223]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:36:14 +0200 Received: from ionictea by cpe-24-55-26-223.austin.res.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:36:14 +0200 From: Saeed Subject: Re: fio jobs time_based & runtime scope Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:36:00 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: fio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: fio@vger.kernel.org To: fio@vger.kernel.org Looking at this example https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/master/examples/surface-scan.fio I noticed it didn't have any runtime and/or time_based bound settings so I wanted to confirm if its needed or not. On 2016-07-26 18:11:47 +0000, Sitsofe Wheeler said: > On 26 July 2016 at 17:53, Saeed > wrote: >> But what about in the case of a verify job where we want verification done >> (do_verify)? Should we exclude the runtime & time_based settings from the >> validation/verification job? > > If I had to guarantee at least one write pass was completed and one > verification pass was also completed then yes I'd ensure that runtime > and time_based were not set on that write job. runtime/time_based is > there so you can guarantee a job will run for given period of time > (and not dramatically more or less time). > >> http://www.coderplay.org/filesysdev/FIO-Data-Integrity-Test.html >> >> "However, if the job file specifies to run based on time rather than total >> number of bytes (setting runtime=int and time_based), then do_verify() is >> not performed. " > > This is correct and matches my previous warning. If you are asking for > *both runtime and time_based* and the verification job is a write one > then it won't stop writing until runtime is exceeded and at that point > there can't be any time left to do the verify. What are you trying to > achieve by setting runtime/time_based?