I agree with all of this. The longer run up of possible official code would be very welcome. Unlike most, I’ve been working with the C program for months, but the announcement that the requirement is a double run took me very much by surprise. As a production site, I have to catch as catch can to run the benchmarks, so the more time I have to do that with frozen code, the better. --Ken Sent from my <advertising redacted> On May 29, 2020, at 6:54 PM, Chaarawi, Mohamad via IO-500 <io-500(a)vi4io.org&gt; wrote:  Hi, The deadline extension / BOF postponement is definitely welcome on our end 😊 As has been discussed here and on the slack channel, we were struggling after the official announcement to get the new benchmark running. We did make it work finally earlier this morning with a bunch of patches to the different layers (io500-app, ior/mdtest, and the respective drivers); however given the nature of production systems, resetting things up there is a different story vs. trying it on a local setup where things are not available on demand. For the concrete action, I think the timelines proposed make a lot of sense, but IMO the 6 week fixed period could be a little longer since production systems don’t have a lot of maintenance windows where the cluster can be reserved fully for a full run. I would prefer to see 2+ months for that period, but I do understand the challenge on the committee members and the community to do the testing that is required to work out all the quirks with the candidate benchmark. Anyway, having known and fixed dates for the benchmark release, testing phase, and lock phase regardless of the time span in between is a good measure to avoid surprises. Thanks, Mohamad From: IO-500 <io-500-bounces(a)vi4io.org&gt; on behalf of committee--- via IO-500 <io-500(a)vi4io.org&gt; Reply-To: &quot;committee(a)io500.org&quot; <committee(a)io500.org&gt; Date: Friday, May 29, 2020 at 5:32 PM To: &quot;io-500(a)vi4io.org&quot; <io-500(a)vi4io.org&gt; Subject: [IO-500] Proposal of possible postponement of ISC20 IO500 BOF Dear IO500 Community, We have heard your concerns about the late announcement of changes and have already taken one concrete action and are considering a second but we want your feedback about it first. We are considering postponing our BoF, and our deadline, by one month. Since we are not tied to ISC this year, we have this latitude. Are there any objections from the community to this postponement? For our concrete action, we will shift future schedules so that three months from an event we release a candidate benchmark and the likely rules set for public testing. Then commit to 6 weeks before the event to finalize the benchmark and rules. Then things are locked until after the event. Please let us know how you feel about the possible postponement and please do know how deeply we value you all in our community that makes everything we do possible. Based on the feedback received, we will make and announce our final decision by EOD Sunday AOE. Thanks, The IO500 Committee _______________________________________________ IO-500 mailing list IO-500(a)vi4io.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.vi4io.org/mailman/listinfo/io-500...

Dear Community, Based on the feedback we have received, we are postponing the submission deadline by one month. More details to follow. Thanks for being a great community and we will continue to do our best to ensure your time spent on IO500 continues to serve our collective vision of ensuring the best possible storage performance across a representative set of workloads. The IO500 Committee On 2020-05-29 16:14, committee(a)io500.org wrote: