-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Weird results #29
Comments
What kind of disk are you testing? If it's a rotating disk, maybe the tool estimated read iops incorrectly. You can try with --max-read-iops 200 (adjust according to what you think the disk can bear). |
Actually, it looks like SSD since you got 2 GB/s. What's the make and model of the disk? Please upload the results directory with the json files somewhere. |
Yes, it's SSD disk from Intel - https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/122570/intel-ssd-dc-p4510-series.html. I tried to run diskplorer with default iops/write bandwith (auto-discover one) and with explicitly providing the values from the disk spec - the result is the same. Here is the link to result file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dEASw8X7Z0Xny1xWo8xWM7ZHMUGsq_5d/view?usp=sharing |
"jobname": "job(r_idx=1,w_idx=0,write_bw=0,r_iops=31825)",
"groupid": 0,
"error": 0,
"eta": 0,
"elapsed": 37,
"job options": {
"rw": "randread",
"bs": "4096",
"iodepth": "1000",
"rate_iops": "397",
"rate_process": "poisson"
},
"read": {
"io_bytes": 3534966784,
"io_kbytes": 3452116,
"bw_bytes": 117761569,
"bw": 115001,
"iops": 28748.017856,
"runtime": 30018, We commanded 80*397=31827 (do you have 80 threads?) and only got 28748.017856 iops. So diskplorer disqualified (diskualified?) this result. Please pick the .fio directory corresponding to this job (r_idx=1,w_idx=0) and rerun it under fio directly, look at top/blktrace etc to see what went wrong. |
There are 80 cores, so I think 80 threads should be fine. Thanks for the pointer, will try to run it! |
Hi, thanks a lot for developing this tool, I think that's a fantastic idea. I've tried to run it but got really weird results genereated (screen attached). Any ideas on how to better debug this or why I've got this result? Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: