3 ms·

How many iops do you get when you test it with fio (http://linux.die.net/man/1/fio http://linux.die.net/man/1/fio) ? Example: sudo fio --filename=/home/olav/te

by olavgg 10y ago

How many iops do you get when you test it with fio (http://linux.die.net/man/1/fio http://linux.die.net/man/1/fio) ? Example: sudo fio --filename=/home/olav/testfile --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=read --bs=4k --numjobs=8 --iodepth=32 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --size=1G --name=journal-test

nl 10y ago
Not in-front of it now. Will try to remember to do this though.
- ElijahLynn 10y ago
  Please do this, the IOPS are very important!
Qiasfah 10y ago
Anandtech's results may be applicable here too: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-review-256gb-512gb/3 http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-revie...
cmurphycode 10y ago
For 4K random reads, you'll probably want more than 32 iodepth, even on a consumer drive like this. And you'll want to try to write to each offset in the drive beforehand in case they have a "return 0" shortcut (like many enterprise drives).
fahadkhan 10y ago
I have two of these in raid 0 in a Lenovo P70. fahad@heffalump:~/fiotest$ sudo fio --filename=$PWD/testfile --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=read --bs=4k --numjobs=8 --iodepth=32 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --size=1G --name=journal-test journal-test: (g=0): rw=read, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=sync, iodepth=32 ... fio-2.2.10 Starting 8 processes journal-test: Laying out IO file(s) (1 file(s) / 1024MB) Jobs: 8 (f=8): [R(8)] [100.0% done] [367.8MB/0KB/0KB /s] [94.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s] journal-test: (groupid=0, jobs=8): err= 0: pid=25184: Wed Jun 1 17:32:44 2016 read : io=22265MB, bw=379986KB/s, iops=94996, runt= 60001msec clat (usec): min=15, max=19595, avg=83.59, stdev=102.01 lat (usec): min=15, max=19595, avg=83.65, stdev=102.02 clat percentiles (usec): | 1.00th=[ 20], 5.00th=[ 65], 10.00th=[ 66], 20.00th=[ 68], | 30.00th=[ 75], 40.00th=[ 79], 50.00th=[ 80], 60.00th=[ 82], | 70.00th=[ 84], 80.00th=[ 90], 90.00th=[ 97], 95.00th=[ 108], | 99.00th=[ 141], 99.50th=[ 173], 99.90th=[ 900], 99.95th=[ 1704], | 99.99th=[ 4768] bw (KB /s): min=43704, max=53976, per=12.51%, avg=47524.23, stdev=1225.35 lat (usec) : 20=0.74%, 50=1.42%, 100=89.28%, 250=8.32%, 500=0.09% lat (usec) : 750=0.03%, 1000=0.03% lat (msec) : 2=0.06%, 4=0.02%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01% cpu : usr=1.38%, sys=7.92%, ctx=5737418, majf=0, minf=89 IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=5699889/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0, drop=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: io=22265MB, aggrb=379986KB/s, minb=379986KB/s, maxb=379986KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec
- olavgg 10y ago
  That is awesome, what do you get with writes? (rw=write)
  - nl 10y ago
    I ran both: https://gist.github.com/nlothian/e22ee30c6ccb8d473058d9e0864d3b13 https://gist.github.com/nlothian/e22ee30c6ccb8d473058d9e0864... Read is a lot (LOT) faster than writes. Enough to make me thing I might have something misconfigurated there(?), although I'm not familiar enough with this benchmark to know for sure.
    - jandrese 10y ago
      It's not unusual for write performance to be staggeringly worse than read on SSDs. It all depends how the controller is setup and how the manufacturer wants it to benchmark. Most sites emphasize read performance so the companies tune for it.

by olavgg 10y ago

nl 10y ago

Not in-front of it now. Will try to remember to do this though.

ElijahLynn 10y ago
Please do this, the IOPS are very important!

Qiasfah 10y ago

Anandtech's results may be applicable here too: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-review-256gb-512gb/3 http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-revie...

cmurphycode 10y ago

For 4K random reads, you'll probably want more than 32 iodepth, even on a consumer drive like this. And you'll want to try to write to each offset in the drive beforehand in case they have a "return 0" shortcut (like many enterprise drives).

fahadkhan 10y ago

I have two of these in raid 0 in a Lenovo P70. fahad@heffalump:~/fiotest$ sudo fio --filename=$PWD/testfile --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=read --bs=4k --numjobs=8 --iodepth=32 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --size=1G --name=journal-test journal-test: (g=0): rw=read, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=sync, iodepth=32 ... fio-2.2.10 Starting 8 processes journal-test: Laying out IO file(s) (1 file(s) / 1024MB) Jobs: 8 (f=8): [R(8)] [100.0% done] [367.8MB/0KB/0KB /s] [94.2K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s] journal-test: (groupid=0, jobs=8): err= 0: pid=25184: Wed Jun 1 17:32:44 2016 read : io=22265MB, bw=379986KB/s, iops=94996, runt= 60001msec clat (usec): min=15, max=19595, avg=83.59, stdev=102.01 lat (usec): min=15, max=19595, avg=83.65, stdev=102.02 clat percentiles (usec): | 1.00th=[ 20], 5.00th=[ 65], 10.00th=[ 66], 20.00th=[ 68], | 30.00th=[ 75], 40.00th=[ 79], 50.00th=[ 80], 60.00th=[ 82], | 70.00th=[ 84], 80.00th=[ 90], 90.00th=[ 97], 95.00th=[ 108], | 99.00th=[ 141], 99.50th=[ 173], 99.90th=[ 900], 99.95th=[ 1704], | 99.99th=[ 4768] bw (KB /s): min=43704, max=53976, per=12.51%, avg=47524.23, stdev=1225.35 lat (usec) : 20=0.74%, 50=1.42%, 100=89.28%, 250=8.32%, 500=0.09% lat (usec) : 750=0.03%, 1000=0.03% lat (msec) : 2=0.06%, 4=0.02%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01% cpu : usr=1.38%, sys=7.92%, ctx=5737418, majf=0, minf=89 IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=5699889/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0, drop=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: io=22265MB, aggrb=379986KB/s, minb=379986KB/s, maxb=379986KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec

olavgg 10y ago
That is awesome, what do you get with writes? (rw=write)
- nl 10y ago
  I ran both: https://gist.github.com/nlothian/e22ee30c6ccb8d473058d9e0864d3b13 https://gist.github.com/nlothian/e22ee30c6ccb8d473058d9e0864... Read is a lot (LOT) faster than writes. Enough to make me thing I might have something misconfigurated there(?), although I'm not familiar enough with this benchmark to know for sure.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    It's not unusual for write performance to be staggeringly worse than read on SSDs. It all depends how the controller is setup and how the manufacturer wants it to benchmark. Most sites emphasize read performance so the companies tune for it.