On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:28 PM Richard W.M. Jones
<rjones(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have pushed some parts of these patches in order to reduce the delta
> between your patches and upstream. However still some problems with
> the series:
>
> Patch 1: Same problem with scale as discussed before.
I addressed this here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-December/msg00011.html
> Patch 2: At least the documentation needs to be updated since it no
> longer matches what is printed. The idea of collecting the time taken
> in each operation is good on its own, so I pushed that part of it
> along with small const-correctness and whitespace fixes:
>
>
https://github.com/libguestfs/nbdkit/commit/f280530d7d042d5e8f100125ab061...
Thanks for pushing it.
> Why don't we show the total time and time / operation on each line of
> output (ie. per operation), instead of synthesizing the total by
> adding up reads and writes?
I think that synthesizing totals give better view on total application
throughput, and add
information that was not available before, like total number of ops.
Showing two rate
values per operation looks confusing to me.
But how about this:
----------------------------------------------
total: 2299 ops, 2.172 s, 6.00 GiB, 2.76 GiB/s
520.73 MiB/s write, 2.23 GiB/s zero
-----------------------------------------------
write: 1271 ops, 0.356 s, 1.13 GiB, 3.19 GiB/s
zero: 1027 ops, 0.012 s, 4.86 GiB, 405.00 GiB/s
extents: 1 ops, 0.000 s, 2.00 GiB, 485.29 GiB/s
flush: 2 ops, 1.252 s
Yes, better than before.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.