Re: [RFC v1 0/1] nvme testsuite runtime optimization

[Daniel Wagner]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 09:11:33PM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> >> Those jobs are meant to be run for at least 1G to establish
> >> confidence on the data set and the system under test since SSDs
> >> are in TBs nowadays and we don't even get anywhere close to that,
> >> with your suggestion we are going even lower ...
> >
> > Where does the 1G boundary coming from?
> >
>
> I wrote these testcases 3 times, initially they were the part of
> nvme-cli tests7-8 years ago, then nvmftests 7-6 years ago, then they
> moved to blktests.
> 
> In that time some of the testcases would not fail on with small size
> such as less than 512MB especially with verification but they were
> in the errors with 1G Hence I kept to be 1G.
> 
> Now I don't remember why I didn't use bigger size than 1G
> should have documented that somewhere ...

Can you remember why you chosed to set the image size to 1G and the io size for
fio to 950m in nvme/012 and nvme/013?

I am testing various image sizes and found that small images e.g in the range of
[4..64]m are passing fine but larger ones like [512-...]M do not (no space
left). Note I've added a calc function which does image size - 1M to leave some
room left.