Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

After fio using the norandommap parameter, the verify: bad header error occurs. #1756

Open
1 task done
ly52660685 opened this issue May 9, 2024 · 4 comments
Open
1 task done

Comments

@ly52660685
Copy link

ly52660685 commented May 9, 2024

Please acknowledge the following before creating a ticket

Description of the bug:

It seems that the norandommap parameter of fio affects the consistency check result.

Environment:
[root@localhost ~]# uname -a
Linux localhost.localdomain 5.10.0-60.18.0.50.r1064_49.hce2.aarch64 #1 SMP Tue Nov 28 08:26:19 UTC 2023 aarch64 aarch64 aarch64 GNU/Linux

fio version:
fio-3.29,

Reproduction steps

1、without norandommap ,fio task success
fio --name=ssd --numjobs=1 --filename=/home/test.io --bs=1m --iodepth=256 --rw=randrw -rwmixread=50 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --sync=0 --group_reporting --runtime=100 --time_based --do_verify=1 --verify=md5 --size=10G
2、with norandommap, fio fail
image

@vincentkfu
Copy link
Collaborator

Please try fio 3.37 and simplify your job to include the minimal options that produce the issue.

@ly52660685
Copy link
Author

ly52660685 commented May 10, 2024

Please try fio 3.37 and simplify your job to include the minimal options that produce the issue.

I ‘ve already tried the latest version,and it has the same problem.

When the norandommap parameter is used, some blocks on the SSD may be read and written multiple times. It seems that the problem lies in this problem. If the norandommap parameter is not used, the fio obtains only the new offset, and the blocks will not be written/read for many times.

@axboe
Copy link
Owner

axboe commented May 10, 2024

You can't use norandommap with verify. I think fio allows it for fixed block sizes, but it's not sane if you're tracking generations of writes.

@ly52660685
Copy link
Author

@axboe ok,thank you.Do you consider supporting norandommap with verify in the future?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants