Re: Measuring IOPS (solved, I think)

[Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2011-08-03 11:03, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> wait_before? But then "wait_for_previous" might be the clearest 
> description. "wait_before" would make sense with an "wait_after" that 
> waits after the job for its completion. But two options for basically the 
> same thing might complicate matters even more.

Yes, I'm not going to add another option where only the placement of it
would make a difference. I'll add wait_for_previous.

> So "wait_for_previous" or maybe "finish_previous_first" or just 
> "finish_previous" would be fine with me.
> 
> But then this doesn´t imply that fio does a cache flush. But that could be 
> documented in the manpage with an additional hint on this option. I will 
> think about it and possibly provide a patch.

Not really impacted by that, those are controlled on a job by job basis
anyway.

-- 
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