Re: Measuring IOPS (solved, I think)

[Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2011-08-02 23:28, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 2. August 2011 schrieben Sie:
>> That's a long email! The stonewall should be put in the job section
>> that has to wait for previous jobs. So, ala:
>>
>> [job1]
>> something
>>
>> [job2]
>> stonewall       # will wait for job1 to finish
>> something
>>
>> [job3]
>> something       # will run in parallel with job2
>>
>> [job4]
>> stonewall       # will run when job2+3 are finished
>> something
>>
>> If that's not the case, something is broken. A quick test here seems to
>> show that it works.
> 
> Its documented. From the manpage that I read several times by now:
> 
> Wait for preceding jobs in the job file to exit before starting this one.  
> stonewall implies new_group.
> 
> 
> Somehow despite my reading of manpage, README, HOWTO I came to the thought 
> that it tells fio to wait for the current job to finish, thus I had the 
> stonewall options misordered.
> 
> I expect that it works exactly as you said and try it this way. Instead of 
> omitting the last stonewall option in my iops job file I could omit the 
> first for the first job. Cause the first job does not need to wait for a 
> previous job.

Good, that makes me feel a little better :-)

Perhaps the name isn't that great? I'll gladly put in an alias for that
option, "wait_for_previous" or "barrier" or something like that. Fence?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html