Re: fio: current verify status

From: Jens Axboe <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:32:41 +0200

On Mon, Jul 30 2007, Shawn Lewis wrote:
> > - Verify without IO log. This will be very nice, looking forward to
> > that. I'm assuming this also means that you can run a read verify of a
> > file without knowing the block sizes from when it was written? That
> > would be useful. I'm assuming that is has to handle that, otherwise I
> > don't see how verify without an IO log and bsrange= would work.
> Can't we reproduce the random sequence by saving the seeds used to generate
> it?
> Also verify_offset probably doesn't currently play nice with bsrange=. I'm
> less concerned with bsrange= but I'll try to make io-log-less verification
> work for as many cases as I can.

Actually, that approach should work as well for bsrange= as long as we
save all seeds to regenerate offset and buffer size. It does smell a
little fragile though, if some little condition changes (a part of the
file set missing or smaller, IO retries, or something else) and causes
fio to generate a new io_u. Then the remainder of the verification will

Jens Axboe
Received on Tue Jul 31 2007 - 08:32:41 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 09:00:01 CEST