[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <qflkb4gu5lz5wx2oka5ceclj7ez5ic5oyofd3tzyjapjyrorlk@e7kkpa6bxwun>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:24:15 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@...tmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/1] nvme testsuite runtime optimization
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 09:11:33PM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> >> Those jobs are meant to be run for at least 1G to establish
> >> confidence on the data set and the system under test since SSDs
> >> are in TBs nowadays and we don't even get anywhere close to that,
> >> with your suggestion we are going even lower ...
> >
> > Where does the 1G boundary coming from?
> >
>
> I wrote these testcases 3 times, initially they were the part of
> nvme-cli tests7-8 years ago, then nvmftests 7-6 years ago, then they
> moved to blktests.
>
> In that time some of the testcases would not fail on with small size
> such as less than 512MB especially with verification but they were
> in the errors with 1G Hence I kept to be 1G.
>
> Now I don't remember why I didn't use bigger size than 1G
> should have documented that somewhere ...
Can you remember why you chosed to set the image size to 1G and the io size for
fio to 950m in nvme/012 and nvme/013?
I am testing various image sizes and found that small images e.g in the range of
[4..64]m are passing fine but larger ones like [512-...]M do not (no space
left). Note I've added a calc function which does image size - 1M to leave some
room left.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists