I don't know of any issue with the dashboard counter reporting the wrong values, so there may an issue here I don't know about, but lets start with a simpler explanation. do you happen to have any caching layer between FIO and ScaleIO (file system caching, XC device etc)? are you sure you are using the direct IO option in FIO (--direct=1)? in both cases, the application will be getting hits from memory that is not under ScaleIO's control.
if it is neither options, can you describe in a little more details, what the test is doing? where are you getting the other results? can you maybe reading from address spaces that were not written before in a thin environment (common in tests, not is real life).
Hello... I thought you might be interested in providing some additional product/use case feedback via an anonymous survey. You can earn a GoPro in exchange for your commentary.
DanAharoni
16 Posts
540
0
Posted August 9th, 2015 04:00
Nice results!
I don't know of any issue with the dashboard counter reporting the wrong values, so there may an issue here I don't know about, but lets start with a simpler explanation. do you happen to have any caching layer between FIO and ScaleIO (file system caching, XC device etc)? are you sure you are using the direct IO option in FIO (--direct=1)? in both cases, the application will be getting hits from memory that is not under ScaleIO's control.
if it is neither options, can you describe in a little more details, what the test is doing? where are you getting the other results? can you maybe reading from address spaces that were not written before in a thin environment (common in tests, not is real life).
Thanks,