* Confirming test parameters
@ 2014-09-28 21:45 Hinson, Roger
2014-09-28 22:28 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hinson, Roger @ 2014-09-28 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fio
Hey all,
I'm setting up a test to simulate what we're actually seeing on one of our storage arrays. Can you take a look and provide me some feedback?
The array usage is for two workload types:
Type 1:
Random Read % - 45
Random Write % - 55
Sequential Read % - 1
Sequential Write % - 3
R/W Ratio - 45:55
Random Block Size - 4K
Sequential Block Size - 64K
Type 2:
Random Read % - 1
Random Write % - 13
Sequential Read % - 2
Sequential Write % - 84
R/W Ratio - 3:97
Random Block Size - 4K
Sequential Block Size - 32K
I came up with this:
[global]
group_reporting=1
thread
iodepth=8
ioengine=libaio
direct=1
refill_buffers
randrepeat=1
randseed=100
random_distribution=zipf:1.01
runtime=1200
time_based
bs_is_seq_rand
[45read55write_dm0_numjobs_2]
write_bw_log=4555_dm0_2
write_lat_log=4555_dm0_2
write_iops_log=4555_dm0_2
filename=/dev/mapper/mpathq
rw=randrw
rwmixread=45
rwmixwrite=55
percentage_random=96
bs=64K,4K
buffer_compress_percentage=50
buffer_compress_chunk=512
numjobs=2
[3read97write_dm1_numjobs_2]
write_bw_log=397_dm1_2
write_lat_log=397_dm1_2
write_iops_log=397_dm1_2
filename=/dev/mapper/mpathr
rw=randrw
rwmixread=3
rwmixwrite=97
percentage_random=14
bs=32K,4K
buffer_compress_percentage=50
buffer_compress_chunk=512
numjobs=2
Thanks,
Roger
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Confirming test parameters
2014-09-28 21:45 Confirming test parameters Hinson, Roger
@ 2014-09-28 22:28 ` Jens Axboe
2014-09-29 5:50 ` Hinson, Roger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2014-09-28 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hinson, Roger, fio
On 2014-09-28 15:45, Hinson, Roger wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm setting up a test to simulate what we're actually seeing on one of our storage arrays. Can you take a look and provide me some feedback?
>
> The array usage is for two workload types:
>
> Type 1:
> Random Read % - 45
> Random Write % - 55
> Sequential Read % - 1
> Sequential Write % - 3
> R/W Ratio - 45:55
> Random Block Size - 4K
> Sequential Block Size - 64K
>
> Type 2:
> Random Read % - 1
> Random Write % - 13
> Sequential Read % - 2
> Sequential Write % - 84
> R/W Ratio - 3:97
> Random Block Size - 4K
> Sequential Block Size - 32K
>
> I came up with this:
>
> [global]
> group_reporting=1
> thread
> iodepth=8
> ioengine=libaio
> direct=1
> refill_buffers
> randrepeat=1
> randseed=100
> random_distribution=zipf:1.01
> runtime=1200
> time_based
> bs_is_seq_rand
>
> [45read55write_dm0_numjobs_2]
> write_bw_log=4555_dm0_2
> write_lat_log=4555_dm0_2
> write_iops_log=4555_dm0_2
> filename=/dev/mapper/mpathq
> rw=randrw
> rwmixread=45
> rwmixwrite=55
> percentage_random=96
> bs=64K,4K
> buffer_compress_percentage=50
> buffer_compress_chunk=512
> numjobs=2
>
> [3read97write_dm1_numjobs_2]
> write_bw_log=397_dm1_2
> write_lat_log=397_dm1_2
> write_iops_log=397_dm1_2
> filename=/dev/mapper/mpathr
> rw=randrw
> rwmixread=3
> rwmixwrite=97
> percentage_random=14
> bs=32K,4K
> buffer_compress_percentage=50
> buffer_compress_chunk=512
> numjobs=2
This looks like a pretty good approximation. Note that percentage_random
can take all data directions into account. So if you have a workload
that is:
read sequential: 57%
write sequential: 95%
you could do:
percentage_random=43,5
and have that just work.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE: Confirming test parameters
2014-09-28 22:28 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2014-09-29 5:50 ` Hinson, Roger
2014-09-29 14:12 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hinson, Roger @ 2014-09-29 5:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, fio
-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Axboe [mailto:axboe@kernel.dk]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 3:29 PM
To: Hinson, Roger; fio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Confirming test parameters
On 2014-09-28 15:45, Hinson, Roger wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm setting up a test to simulate what we're actually seeing on one of our storage arrays. Can you take a look and provide me some feedback?
>
> The array usage is for two workload types:
>
> Type 1:
> Random Read % - 45
> Random Write % - 55
> Sequential Read % - 1
> Sequential Write % - 3
> R/W Ratio - 45:55
> Random Block Size - 4K
> Sequential Block Size - 64K
>
> Type 2:
> Random Read % - 1
> Random Write % - 13
> Sequential Read % - 2
> Sequential Write % - 84
> R/W Ratio - 3:97
> Random Block Size - 4K
> Sequential Block Size - 32K
>
> I came up with this:
>
> [global]
> group_reporting=1
> thread
> iodepth=8
> ioengine=libaio
> direct=1
> refill_buffers
> randrepeat=1
> randseed=100
> random_distribution=zipf:1.01
> runtime=1200
> time_based
> bs_is_seq_rand
>
> [45read55write_dm0_numjobs_2]
> write_bw_log=4555_dm0_2
> write_lat_log=4555_dm0_2
> write_iops_log=4555_dm0_2
> filename=/dev/mapper/mpathq
> rw=randrw
> rwmixread=45
> rwmixwrite=55
> percentage_random=96
> bs=64K,4K
> buffer_compress_percentage=50
> buffer_compress_chunk=512
> numjobs=2
>
> [3read97write_dm1_numjobs_2]
> write_bw_log=397_dm1_2
> write_lat_log=397_dm1_2
> write_iops_log=397_dm1_2
> filename=/dev/mapper/mpathr
> rw=randrw
> rwmixread=3
> rwmixwrite=97
> percentage_random=14
> bs=32K,4K
> buffer_compress_percentage=50
> buffer_compress_chunk=512
> numjobs=2
This looks like a pretty good approximation. Note that percentage_random can take all data directions into account. So if you have a workload that is:
read sequential: 57%
write sequential: 95%
you could do:
percentage_random=43,5
and have that just work.
--
Jens Axboe
Making sure I understand that. I'm not sure if I have the right percentages.
Since I'm using this for my type 2 above:
rw=randrw
rwmixread=3
rwmixwrite=97
percentage_random=14
Would I list it as percentage_random=1,13 because my read sequential is 2% and write sequential is 84% ?
Thanks,
Roger
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Confirming test parameters
2014-09-29 5:50 ` Hinson, Roger
@ 2014-09-29 14:12 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2014-09-29 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hinson, Roger, fio
On 2014-09-28 23:50, Hinson, Roger wrote:
> Making sure I understand that. I'm not sure if I have the right percentages.
>
> Since I'm using this for my type 2 above:
> rw=randrw
> rwmixread=3
> rwmixwrite=97
> percentage_random=14
>
> Would I list it as percentage_random=1,13 because my read sequential is 2% and write sequential is 84% ?
For those parameters, you should use 100 - percentage for both of them.
So this would be the correct option:
percentage_random=98,16
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-29 14:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-28 21:45 Confirming test parameters Hinson, Roger
2014-09-28 22:28 ` Jens Axboe
2014-09-29 5:50 ` Hinson, Roger
2014-09-29 14:12 ` Jens Axboe
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.