From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Reinoud Zandijk Subject: Re: IOzone testing Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:06:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20090926180613.GA6733@aardappel.13thmonkey.org> References: <4ABE0553.3090502@att.net> <4ABE0AD7.7000904@att.net> <4ABE13D3.2080809@att.net> <4ABE2704.6030607@att.net> Reply-To: NILFS Users mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ABE2704.6030607-fOdFMYwuEsI@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: NILFS Users mailing list Hi folks, On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:36:52AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > So, let me summarize what I think I should do to test nilfs with > IOzone without the impact of the checkpoints and without filling > up the space. I've dug into the iozone code and found it littered with sync(2) calls to flush the buffers. This is what creates the checkpoints. If you take a big enough disc it wouldn't matter otherwise you'll get into dynamic behaviour IOzone is not really build for. With regards, Reinoud