From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Fri Feb 22 15:54:38 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6451314F0DF2 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:54:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E2737281F for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:54:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id y10so1294860plp.0 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:54:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=BNu9+jfFoQpv/gQuM2zZXzM0X4QR3A4u+0LX3iYFn8w=; b=gR5wQk45YE3uVaFat+qZ7hXkpJTU38OI2MY6GqkhDvNQklR9iIt2zc3LhQngH84bQw BCQCtLUBM5oRJgk9eLgN5H+a2f7xiaPhKOik4DKD7/RlPJw6AKneR9483TfU3Nw6uCBJ wabl5qVEbto1FZ1/apmAdCaueV2SnpdF/63g2ThvJXmuVOihJeFqg2yrCDjSqTw2cAEf tvfaW0iIcct5R+AHL30vOm7R4l9oqbTKUGaPOu7VtimYa77XoFT1GlDGcA4uWLV41l3v JOBQf4gB8E3Tn29a7J87GwFl3Sk+rQggbBCs1f/156XCvR/iLcrJSN3qxopHc8Qne4b7 wMIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=BNu9+jfFoQpv/gQuM2zZXzM0X4QR3A4u+0LX3iYFn8w=; b=sq3djwYKs5X6Z5RDtA8H3PVJ70xxIMdMQWgkv75w+BlOoBvKhd1jCLeyZxXjSsKBb1 65ZCexJwsr8CLOColv0dgspXYbYTghwv3D7fKOwSBcm04pTg2V9rMlLTRxOe7XXg/MBt 3gOjOScvff9es24nkT1+MwZTPDJk/5YMLU5uW5h64mkQhTw+J9SPXdySoF2il2hJa5lj slyPnWteYLrkpbToK+Itr6TCkkWfMgD2v7WljuLg93uTHyW1u4VjKZ8BSxElRFx33uTM UPRt5iiZ06G9ES2em+bgVMn25xFlNCNQVkDCLjL4pWFX+ab1163W5RLQQAhqoM2N9JsL OfKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubS5TkjRuWEIyHC6i7h1PzTEdQEgL5mtQSqCkRoizETMZ4nVTKG bEhsUX+IT2yV8sMABu7ZJJs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbtHYy4SfHqJTBj0WN5cPcEaJnQ/a5+W4ximaGyO0xcdgSUzSNe3pr6D2mGJdGNVv02ZKtlvQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6b08:: with SMTP id o8mr4792972plk.105.1550850875591; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2607:fb90:9ce1:40d1:ed66:b39f:a9eb:5412? ([2607:fb90:9ce1:40d1:ed66:b39f:a9eb:5412]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g128sm2665590pfb.121.2019.02.22.07.54.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:54:35 -0800 (PST) From: Enji Cooper Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: Any ideal way to run FIO benchmarking for NVMEe devices in FreeBSD Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:51:44 -0800 Message-Id: References: <0E136DED-C1AD-481C-B243-C943D4F8D9C5@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers In-Reply-To: To: Rajesh Kumar X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2E2737281F X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=gR5wQk45; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of yaneurabeya@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yaneurabeya@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.30 / 15.00]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.992,0]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[0.3.6.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.80)[ip: (-9.33), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-2.62), asn: 15169(-1.99), country: US(-0.07)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:54:38 -0000 > On Feb 22, 2019, at 01:29, Rajesh Kumar wrote: >=20 > Hi Enji Cooper, >=20 > I am using Samsung 960 PRO >=20 > https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/consumer/960pro= / Hi Rajesh, I asked about the datasheet, because there might be some hints in terms o= f the number of parallel jobs you might want to apply as well as the I/O que= ue depth, which will affect the performance of the drive. Otherwise you=E2=80= =99ll be throwing values against a wall, seeing what will stick, which is so= rt of ok if you bound your testing and adjust based on performance, but if y= our initial hunch is off, it can mislead you. Similarly, check to see if there are any tunables or sysctls that will b= ound the device in terms of the queue depth and I/O requests. As others have noted, test the device directly if you want to know its r= aw performance. Only test with a filesystem if your intent is to see how the= device will perform with a filesystem on it (and disable filesystem sync if= you want to test max throughput with the overhead of a filesystem). Testing= with a filesystem can reveal some potentially interesting characteristics, i= n terms of limitations in VFS / the filesystem implementation, which might b= e helpful if you=E2=80=99re trying to determine why there=E2=80=99s a differ= ence between raw device speed and the speed with a filesystem on it. Testing= with the same file in different directories is ok, as long as you blow the d= rive cache=E2=80=94which will have a noticeable performance impact on conven= tional (PMR, SMR, etc) drives, as you want to test the worst case speed of t= he device, instead of the cache. It should matter a bit less with faster dev= ices like SSDs/NVMe drives. Testing with files in the same lateral filesyste= m hierarchy (same directory), might reveal issues with filesystem locking (d= irectory inode performance), but that shouldn=E2=80=99t be the primary goal o= f your testing. It=E2=80=99s just something to keep in mind. Happy testing! HTH, -Enji=