Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add option to specify ramp period by amount of IO

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:18 PM Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu 18-12-25 10:19:12, Vincent Fu wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 11:17 AM Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > Currently this patch compares the running total of the group's bytes to one
> > job's value for ramp_size and then declares ramp time over for all jobs in
> > the group if the threshold is exceeded. A little more thought should be put
> > into potential use cases here. Should fio allow ramp_size to differ among jobs
> > in a reporting group? Consider adding an option to enable/disable connections
> > between jobs in the same reporting group.
>
> My intention (somewhat inspired by the steadystate logic) was that IO of
> all jobs in the group gets summed together and the specified limit is the
> amount of IO for the whole group as well. This was motivated by the usecase
> where you have multiple tasks doing buffered writes and you want ramp up to
> terminate once they together write given amount of data. I didn't even think
> of a case where ramp_size for different jobs in one group would be different.
> Now that I'm checking steadystate logic, it rejects configs where different
> jobs in a group have different configurations so if I add this consistency
> check to ramp_size would you be fine with it?
>
> I think connections between jobs are a bit of an overkill at this point - I
> don't have a usecase for that...
>

Yes, I would be fine with rejecting job files that have differing
ramp_size within a reporting group.

Note that I just merged another pull request that bumped the server version.

Vincent