+1
Hi,
I’d be interested in getting feedback from people that are already using HPE Apollo’s or other high density servers with local storage as repository server. It seems that a lot of people are currently planning to use them.
+1
We just received our 2 demo Apollo 4510 that hopefully become our new copy target. 130Kg! Let’s see if I can test them with the use cases we have for our primary backup storage too. As we are in a hurry to use them as new copy targets (broken copy chains, we have to completely start over) I’m not so sure about it. Anyhow, I’ll be able to get some first impressions soon.
+12
If you don’t know these links, I would recommend you to read is:
It’s about a Veeam configuration, Veeam and HPE made missive performance tests with v11. There are a lot of tips and reasons for these.
+1
The Apollos are not deployed, we are currently installing them with RHEL 8.2. It will take a couple of days until I’ll be able to test.
+1
I’m not sure, I guess those are good results. Looking at https://community.hpe.com/t5/Around-the-Storage-Block/The-fastest-ever-all-in-one-backup-solution-from-HPE-Storage-and/ba-p/7126052#.YJqHi7UzZWI both controllers should be able to write with ~3GB/s. So I’m missing some hundred MB/s. But overall performance is quiet good, especially with the low price of such a box.
+12
I’m not sure, I guess those are good results. Looking at https://community.hpe.com/t5/Around-the-Storage-Block/The-fastest-ever-all-in-one-backup-solution-from-HPE-Storage-and/ba-p/7126052#.YJqHi7UzZWI both controllers should be able to write with ~3GB/s. So I’m missing some hundred MB/s. But overall performance is quiet good, especially with the low price of such a box.
Yes, but you have half the amount of disks! This beast operates 58 disks in 2 Raid60 arrays.
+15
For smaller environments (less than 500 VMs) we use sometimes a DELL PowerEdge R740 XD or XD2.
It is able to handle up to 24 disks with a maximum of - I think - 18TB / disk in the moment.
Up to now we used a ReFS repository with these servers. In the future we will give it a try with a linux installation and an XFS immutable repo…
The server work fine in these environments. No problems up to now.
+1
If you don’t know these links, I would recommend you to read is:
It’s about a Veeam configuration, Veeam and HPE made missive performance tests with v11. There are a lot of tips and reasons for these.
I know both threads, I’ve already spammed the forum. Point is, I don’t see much real world user experience. HPE claims that those devices are heavily used by Veeam customers. But our Veeam contacts could not provide any (larger) company that uses Apollos.
As I’ll not have much time to test our new setup, the decision SAN + Server vs High Density Server has to be 95% the final setup. If I had more time, I’d just test this in our environment for a couple of weeks.
The benchmarks look very solid, but for us it’s not real world as data will not only be written to the Apollo, its the source for copy and offload jobs. And probably surebackup at some point.
So… any feedback appreciated!
+2
Hi,
I’d be interested in getting feedback from people that are already using HPE Apollo’s or other high density servers with local storage as repository server. It seems that a lot of people are currently planning to use them.
i use Dell PowerEdge R740, R730. The performance is Good.
+1
i use Dell PowerEdge R740, R730. The performance is Good.
For how many VM’ s and backup data?
+11
We use a lot of HPE StoreEasy devices for smaller environments including Windows Storage Server : perfect cost-performance balance. For larger environments is a HPE Apollo perfect : more storage available, more performant CPUs availabe, more customizable, more flexible (choose your preferred OS)
+1
[this is frustrating, I just added a post with some benchmark results and ended up with nothing but a warning that it exceeds the max number of characters….]
Here are some initial numbers for one 28 x 16TB RAID 60 xfs volume.
I added the options su and sw to mkfs, I think they should be right, don’t know why mkfs.xfs is complaining.
[root@sdeu2000 ~]# mkfs.xfs -b size=4096 -m reflink=1,crc=1 -d su=256k,sw=24 /dev/sdb -f
mkfs.xfs: Specified data stripe width 12288 is not the same as the volume stripe width 6144
meta-data=/dev/sdf isize=512 agcount=350, agsize=268435392 blks
= sectsz=4096 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=1 finobt=1, sparse=1, rmapbt=0
= reflink=1
data = bsize=4096 blocks=93755080704, imaxpct=1
= sunit=64 swidth=1536 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0, ftype=1
log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=521728, version=2
= sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
read write test with 20 parallel tasks:
[root@sdeu2000 sdeu2000_veeam01]# fio --rw=readwrite --name=test --size=100G --direct=1 --bs=512k --numjobs=20
test: (g=0): rw=rw, bs=(R) 512KiB-512KiB, (W) 512KiB-512KiB, (T) 512KiB-512KiB, ioengine=psync, iodepth=1
...
fio-3.19
Starting 20 processes
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 102400MiB)
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [M(1),_(19)][99.7%][r=966MiB/s,w=938MiB/s][r=1932,w=1875 IOPS][eta 00m:02s]
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=94568: Tue May 11 11:36:10 2021
read: IOPS=152, BW=76.4MiB/s (80.2MB/s)(50.0GiB/670315msec)
clat (usec): min=127, max=333675, avg=5907.59, stdev=14202.00
lat (usec): min=128, max=333675, avg=5907.83, stdev=14202.03
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 133], 5.00th=[ 172], 10.00th=[ 184], 20.00th=[ 249],
| 30.00th=[ 375], 40.00th=[ 537], 50.00th=[ 644], 60.00th=[ 873],
| 70.00th=[ 1680], 80.00th=[ 8160], 90.00th=[ 17171], 95.00th=[ 29754],
| 99.00th=[ 71828], 99.50th=[ 91751], 99.90th=[135267], 99.95th=[154141],
| 99.99th=[208667]
bw ( KiB/s): min= 7168, max=1016832, per=4.97%, avg=77772.72, stdev=115127.85, samples=1337
iops : min= 14, max= 1986, avg=151.77, stdev=224.88, samples=1337
write: IOPS=152, BW=76.3MiB/s (80.0MB/s)(49.0GiB/670315msec); 0 zone resets
clat (usec): min=131, max=249424, avg=604.91, stdev=3200.78
lat (usec): min=135, max=249463, avg=630.75, stdev=3201.17
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 143], 5.00th=[ 165], 10.00th=[ 178], 20.00th=[ 202],
| 30.00th=[ 229], 40.00th=[ 258], 50.00th=[ 293], 60.00th=[ 338],
| 70.00th=[ 408], 80.00th=[ 529], 90.00th=[ 758], 95.00th=[ 1106],
| 99.00th=[ 3916], 99.50th=[ 10683], 99.90th=[ 44827], 99.95th=[ 65799],
| 99.99th=[129500]
….
….
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=1527MiB/s (1602MB/s), 76.4MiB/s-348MiB/s (80.2MB/s-365MB/s), io=1000GiB (1074GB), run=146941-670315msec
WRITE: bw=1528MiB/s (1602MB/s), 76.3MiB/s-349MiB/s (80.0MB/s-366MB/s), io=1000GiB (1074GB), run=146941-670315msec
Disk stats (read/write):
sdb: ios=2047186/2048082, merge=119/120, ticks=7863530/1349428, in_queue=7637829, util=100.00%
+1
70/30 mix
fio --rw=readwrite --name=test --size=100G --direct=1 --bs=512k --numjobs=20 --rwmixread=70
...Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=1562MiB/s (1638MB/s), 77.0MiB/s-352MiB/s (81.8MB/s-369MB/s), io=1400GiB (1503GB), run=203566-917518msec
WRITE: bw=670MiB/s (703MB/s), 33.6MiB/s-151MiB/s (35.2MB/s-158MB/s), io=600GiB (645GB), run=203566-917518msecDisk stats (read/write):
sdb: ios=2866217/1229705, merge=159/59, ticks=14433112/258465, in_queue=13229596, util=100.00%
+7
Thank you guys for all your answers 
+20
I’ve been watching this silently for a while but just want to say a huge thank you to both
It’s rare that we as a collective can all see real world numbers outside of specific lab simulations and free from marketing so this has been truly awesome to see. I’m still looking at potentially a Dell PowerEdge XE7100 based system so if I can organise a test I’d love to re-run these benchmarks and get a true Dell vs HPE battle going here!
+1
Some iozone results: https://pastebin.com/BC2NaHup
+1
The Apollos are not deployed, we are currently installing them with RHEL 8.2. It will take a couple of days until I’ll be able to test.
just curious, why in your case did you choose RHEL 8.2 , instead of (e.g.) Ubuntu?
RHEL is the default for all Linux servers here.
+7
can’t wait to see the results!
+12
+1
Any wishes/hints for testing the xfs filesystem? Fio benchmark? Which options?
+12
Any wishes/hints for testing the xfs filesystem? Fio benchmark? Which options?
I would be interested in the increase of performance respectively bandwidth with every new worker. I did some IOMeter testing with - Windows based - Apollos. There I saw significant increasement with each worker. A single worker was slower than expected.
+1
fio write only test with 20 tasks
I’m not sure about the block size but I think it’s 512K in Veeam.
[root@sdeu2000 sdeu2000_veeam01]# fio --rw=write --name=test --size=100G --direct=1 --bs=512k --numjobs=20
test: (g=0): rw=write, bs=(R) 512KiB-512KiB, (W) 512KiB-512KiB, (T) 512KiB-512KiB, ioengine=psync, iodepth=1
...
fio-3.19
Starting 20 processes
Jobs: 19 (f=19): [_(1),W(19)][99.9%][w=1934MiB/s][w=3868 IOPS][eta 00m:01s]
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=98126: Tue May 11 12:23:30 2021
write: IOPS=200, BW=100MiB/s (105MB/s)(100GiB/1021525msec); 0 zone resets
clat (usec): min=139, max=143292, avg=4969.42, stdev=2871.79
lat (usec): min=147, max=143310, avg=4984.00, stdev=2871.79
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 1893], 5.00th=[ 2311], 10.00th=[ 2671], 20.00th=[ 3261],
| 30.00th=[ 3720], 40.00th=[ 4047], 50.00th=[ 4359], 60.00th=[ 4752],
| 70.00th=[ 5276], 80.00th=[ 6325], 90.00th=[ 8029], 95.00th=[ 9503],
| 99.00th=[ 13173], 99.50th=[ 14615], 99.90th=[ 17957], 99.95th=[ 20055],
| 99.99th=[135267]
bw ( KiB/s): min=75776, max=230400, per=5.01%, avg=102812.49, stdev=7472.14, samples=2039
iops : min= 148, max= 450, avg=200.78, stdev=14.60, samples=2039
lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.01%
lat (msec) : 2=1.61%, 4=36.95%, 10=57.32%, 20=4.02%, 50=0.03%
lat (msec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.02%
cpu : usr=0.40%, sys=0.85%, ctx=204806, majf=0, minf=14
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 rwts: total=0,204800,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=98127: Tue May 11 12:23:30 2021
write: IOPS=200, BW=100MiB/s (105MB/s)(100GiB/1022210msec); 0 zone resets
clat (usec): min=303, max=143285, avg=4969.88, stdev=2876.83
lat (usec): min=316, max=143305, avg=4986.58, stdev=2876.84
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 1893], 5.00th=[ 2311], 10.00th=[ 2638], 20.00th=[ 3261],
| 30.00th=[ 3720], 40.00th=[ 4047], 50.00th=[ 4359], 60.00th=[ 4752],
| 70.00th=[ 5276], 80.00th=[ 6325], 90.00th=[ 8029], 95.00th=[ 9634],
| 99.00th=[ 13173], 99.50th=[ 14615], 99.90th=[ 18220], 99.95th=[ 20055],
| 99.99th=[133694]
bw ( KiB/s): min=74752, max=205606, per=5.01%, avg=102716.82, stdev=6928.77, samples=2040
iops : min= 146, max= 401, avg=200.59, stdev=13.53, samples=2040
lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.01%
lat (msec) : 2=1.65%, 4=36.89%, 10=57.32%, 20=4.07%, 50=0.03%
lat (msec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.02%
cpu : usr=0.43%, sys=0.99%, ctx=204805, majf=0, minf=146
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 rwts: total=0,204800,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
….
….
….
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: bw=2003MiB/s (2101MB/s), 100MiB/s-100MiB/s (105MB/s-105MB/s), io=2000GiB (2147GB), run=1021525-1022299msec
Disk stats (read/write):
sdb: ios=1/4095953, merge=0/239, ticks=0/20170621, in_queue=18120249, util=100.00%
+12
fio write only test with 20 tasks
I’m not sure about the block size but I think it’s 512K in Veeam.
[root@sdeu2000 sdeu2000_veeam01]# fio --rw=write --name=test --size=100G --direct=1 --bs=512k --numjobs=20
test: (g=0): rw=write, bs=(R) 512KiB-512KiB, (W) 512KiB-512KiB, (T) 512KiB-512KiB, ioengine=psync, iodepth=1
...
fio-3.19
Starting 20 processes
Jobs: 19 (f=19): [_(1),W(19)][99.9%][w=1934MiB/s][w=3868 IOPS][eta 00m:01s]
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=98126: Tue May 11 12:23:30 2021
write: IOPS=200, BW=100MiB/s (105MB/s)(100GiB/1021525msec); 0 zone resets
clat (usec): min=139, max=143292, avg=4969.42, stdev=2871.79
lat (usec): min=147, max=143310, avg=4984.00, stdev=2871.79
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 1893], 5.00th=[ 2311], 10.00th=[ 2671], 20.00th=[ 3261],
| 30.00th=[ 3720], 40.00th=[ 4047], 50.00th=[ 4359], 60.00th=[ 4752],
| 70.00th=[ 5276], 80.00th=[ 6325], 90.00th=[ 8029], 95.00th=[ 9503],
| 99.00th=[ 13173], 99.50th=[ 14615], 99.90th=[ 17957], 99.95th=[ 20055],
| 99.99th=[135267]
bw ( KiB/s): min=75776, max=230400, per=5.01%, avg=102812.49, stdev=7472.14, samples=2039
iops : min= 148, max= 450, avg=200.78, stdev=14.60, samples=2039
lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.01%
lat (msec) : 2=1.61%, 4=36.95%, 10=57.32%, 20=4.02%, 50=0.03%
lat (msec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.02%
cpu : usr=0.40%, sys=0.85%, ctx=204806, majf=0, minf=14
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 rwts: total=0,204800,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=98127: Tue May 11 12:23:30 2021
write: IOPS=200, BW=100MiB/s (105MB/s)(100GiB/1022210msec); 0 zone resets
clat (usec): min=303, max=143285, avg=4969.88, stdev=2876.83
lat (usec): min=316, max=143305, avg=4986.58, stdev=2876.84
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 1893], 5.00th=[ 2311], 10.00th=[ 2638], 20.00th=[ 3261],
| 30.00th=[ 3720], 40.00th=[ 4047], 50.00th=[ 4359], 60.00th=[ 4752],
| 70.00th=[ 5276], 80.00th=[ 6325], 90.00th=[ 8029], 95.00th=[ 9634],
| 99.00th=[ 13173], 99.50th=[ 14615], 99.90th=[ 18220], 99.95th=[ 20055],
| 99.99th=[133694]
bw ( KiB/s): min=74752, max=205606, per=5.01%, avg=102716.82, stdev=6928.77, samples=2040
iops : min= 146, max= 401, avg=200.59, stdev=13.53, samples=2040
lat (usec) : 500=0.01%, 750=0.01%, 1000=0.01%
lat (msec) : 2=1.65%, 4=36.89%, 10=57.32%, 20=4.07%, 50=0.03%
lat (msec) : 100=0.01%, 250=0.02%
cpu : usr=0.43%, sys=0.99%, ctx=204805, majf=0, minf=146
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 rwts: total=0,204800,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
….
….
….
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
WRITE: bw=2003MiB/s (2101MB/s), 100MiB/s-100MiB/s (105MB/s-105MB/s), io=2000GiB (2147GB), run=1021525-1022299msec
Disk stats (read/write):
sdb: ios=1/4095953, merge=0/239, ticks=0/20170621, in_queue=18120249, util=100.00%
Veeam Block size:
By default Veeam’s block size is set to Local Target, which is 1 MB before compression. Since compression ratio is very often around 2x, with this block size Veeam will write around 512 KB or less to the repository per Veeam block.
+12
Did I understand correctly: each task wrote with about 100MB/sec?
Did you also do read-tests? Or did I miss them in the amount of text?
+1
For RW and 20 tasks I see ~75MB/s, for Write-Only and Read-Only with 20 tasks ~100MB/s,
Read-Only:
[root@sdeu2000 sdeu2000_veeam01]# fio --rw=read --name=test --size=100G --direct=1 --bs=512k --numjobs=20
test: (g=0): rw=read, bs=(R) 512KiB-512KiB, (W) 512KiB-512KiB, (T) 512KiB-512KiB, ioengine=psync, iodepth=1
...
fio-3.19
Starting 20 processes
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [_(10),R(1),_(9)][100.0%][r=79.9MiB/s][r=159 IOPS][eta 00m:00s]
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=102943: Tue May 11 13:22:36 2021
read: IOPS=193, BW=96.9MiB/s (102MB/s)(100GiB/1057228msec)
clat (usec): min=113, max=123336, avg=5159.42, stdev=8535.84
lat (usec): min=113, max=123336, avg=5159.74, stdev=8535.85
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 117], 5.00th=[ 161], 10.00th=[ 408], 20.00th=[ 453],
| 30.00th=[ 482], 40.00th=[ 510], 50.00th=[ 570], 60.00th=[ 709],
| 70.00th=[ 5407], 80.00th=[ 9896], 90.00th=[16712], 95.00th=[22676],
| 99.00th=[37487], 99.50th=[44827], 99.90th=[60556], 99.95th=[67634],
| 99.99th=[86508]
bw ( KiB/s): min=44346, max=801792, per=5.58%, avg=98929.95, stdev=52916.18, samples=2110
iops : min= 86, max= 1566, avg=193.12, stdev=103.36, samples=2110
lat (usec) : 250=8.51%, 500=28.60%, 750=24.22%, 1000=2.82%
lat (msec) : 2=0.92%, 4=2.31%, 10=12.73%, 20=13.11%, 50=6.47%
lat (msec) : 100=0.29%, 250=0.01%
cpu : usr=0.09%, sys=0.68%, ctx=204804, majf=0, minf=143
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 rwts: total=204800,0,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=102944: Tue May 11 13:22:36 2021
read: IOPS=194, BW=97.2MiB/s (102MB/s)(100GiB/1053277msec)
clat (usec): min=113, max=122927, avg=5140.17, stdev=8549.27
lat (usec): min=113, max=122927, avg=5140.47, stdev=8549.27
clat percentiles (usec):
| 1.00th=[ 117], 5.00th=[ 153], 10.00th=[ 330], 20.00th=[ 453],
| 30.00th=[ 482], 40.00th=[ 510], 50.00th=[ 570], 60.00th=[ 693],
| 70.00th=[ 5276], 80.00th=[10028], 90.00th=[16909], 95.00th=[22676],
| 99.00th=[37487], 99.50th=[44827], 99.90th=[61080], 99.95th=[68682],
| 99.99th=[82314]
bw ( KiB/s): min=49152, max=758291, per=5.62%, avg=99605.59, stdev=60406.04, samples=2102
iops : min= 96, max= 1481, avg=194.44, stdev=117.99, samples=2102
lat (usec) : 250=9.65%, 500=27.67%, 750=24.49%, 1000=2.77%
lat (msec) : 2=0.92%, 4=2.18%, 10=12.40%, 20=13.16%, 50=6.45%
lat (msec) : 100=0.31%, 250=0.01%
cpu : usr=0.09%, sys=0.68%, ctx=204807, majf=0, minf=143
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 rwts: total=204800,0,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1
…
...
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=1730MiB/s (1814MB/s), 86.5MiB/s-538MiB/s (90.7MB/s-564MB/s), io=2000GiB (2147GB), run=190303-1183552msec
Disk stats (read/write):
sdb: ios=4095969/6, merge=239/0, ticks=16619508/0, in_queue=14989359, util=100.00%
+12
Did you try a single-job (--numjobs=1) test? For read, I think, this is also interesting.
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
