Dear Osamu,
Thanks for catching this.
You are right. Remove the option when running as it is not useful but does
not harm either (except for the runtime).
Indeed I see now that something is missing on IOR.
Since the -R option of IOR does make sense only when someone runs with one
iteration and write/read phase, I believe that IOR misses the option that
checks upon each read that the data is correct. This is useful for the
described scenario when splitting write and read phase and also when one
runs multiple iterations (that actually each iteration the offset should be
moved by the rank offset again for each iteration and not just one time to
actually hit multiple ranks, just another minor suboptimality I find, which
spoils IOR results if someone uses multiple iterations and read only).
I will prepare a patch for IOR to provide that functionality.
Julian
Am 27.09.2017 03:53 schrieb "Osamu Tatebe" <tatebe(a)cs.tsukuba.ac.jp>:
Hi Julian,
This checkRead re-reads data and check for errors between
reads. I am afraid this re-read check may not be your
intention.
Regards,
Osamu
From: Julian Kunkel <juliankunkel(a)googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [IO-500] Running of the benchmark
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:07:24 +0200
> Dear Osamu,
> Thanks for carefully looking
> The write benchmark does not have to do it since read does it. So then we
> spot the problem.
> We could do it for the sequential pattern too, that is right. I do have
> much more confidence here that the result is bit identical than to the
> random one. Would wonder if random works but sequential doesn't. The
> amounts of data to check for random is far less so this is literally no
> overhead while for the sequential it may add performance issues when e.g.
> reading from bust buffer. Truly we could have done it but i hope u
> understand this rationales here.
>
> Regards
> Julian
>
> Am 26.09.2017 1:34 nachm. schrieb "Osamu Tatebe" <
tatebe(a)cs.tsukuba.ac.jp>:
>
>> Hi George and all,
>>
>> Thanks for the information.
>>
>> BTW, ior_hard read benchmark has the option -R, which
>> means readCheck. Why only this benchmark has the check
>> option? Other write and read benchmarks do not have it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Osamu
>>
>> From: Georgios Markomanolis <georgios.markomanolis(a)kaust.edu.sa>
>> Subject: Re: [IO-500] Running of the benchmark
>> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:31:17 +0000
>>
>> > Dear Osamu,
>> >
>> > The auto-detect is useful to tune the parameters for the five minutes
>> minimum execution of the benchmark but this does not apply for the find
>> command as it is too difficult and too extreme probably (Julian correct
me
>> if you have different opinion). Thus, the subtree is not important
during
>> auto-detect.
>> >
>> > Check in
https://github.com/VI4IO/io-500-dev/tree/master/site-
>> configs/kaust-georgios instructions in the 4th bullet about how to use
>> the parallel find and how to define the number of the processes which
>> should participate during the parallel find.
>> >
>> > As we are not the ones who developed some of these benchmarks (we just
>> use them) we have not documented, but it is good idea to describe them,
>> thanks for your feedback.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > George
>> > ________________________________________
>> > George Markomanolis, PhD
>> > Computational Scientist
>> > KAUST Supercomputing Laboratory (KSL)
>> > King Abdullah University of Science & Technology
>> > Al Khawarizmi Bldg. (1) Room 0123
>> > Thuwal
>> > Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
>> > Mob: +966 56 325 9012
>> > Office: +966 12 808 0393 <tel:%2B966%2012%20808%200683>
>> >
>> > On 01/09/2017, 9:14 AM, "IO-500 on behalf of Osamu Tatebe" <
>> io-500-bounces(a)vi4io.org on behalf of tatebe(a)cs.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Julian and Georgios,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the information about scripts.
>> >
>> > Regarding subtree.cfg, it seems not to be determined by
>> > auto-detect.sh. This may effect the find and the mdtest
>> > benchmarks. How do we think about it?
>> >
>> > Also, if there is a document or an information about
>> > the benchmark itself, i.e. ior-easy, md-easy, ior-hard,
>> > md-hard and find, please let us know.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Osamu
>> >
>> > From: Julian Kunkel <juliankunkel(a)googlemail.com>
>> > Subject: [IO-500] Running of the benchmark
>> > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 23:34:27 +0200
>> >
>> > > Dear all,
>> > > I pushed some cleanups to the repository and a README.md file
(top
>> level).
>> > > Hope that provides certain answers, we know the description are
not
>> > > yet perfect, but they will be improved over time given that
>> additional
>> > > questions arise.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for those of you that send feedback, do not hesitate to
>> give feedback.
>> > >
>> > > Do not hesitate to join the slack, here is the invite link that
>> shall
>> > > never expire:
>> > >
https://join.slack.com/t/vi4io/shared_invite/
>> MjMyOTgxMDg0OTQ1LTE1MDQwNDE4MzctOTFmMmJiNmM4OQ
>> > >
>> > > Usually, Georgios and me are there frequently and can help you
with
>> > > any question that arises.
>> > >
>> > > Regards
>> > > Julian
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
http://wr.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/people/julian_kunkel
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > IO-500 mailing list
>> > > IO-500(a)vi4io.org
>> > >
https://www.vi4io.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/io-500
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > IO-500 mailing list
>> > IO-500(a)vi4io.org
>> >
https://www.vi4io.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/io-500
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > This message and its contents including attachments are intended
solely
>> for the original recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or
have
>> received this message in error, please notify me immediately and delete
>> this message from your computer system. Any unauthorized use or
>> distribution is prohibited. Please consider the environment before
printing
>> this email.
>>