MQSim is a fast and accurate simulator modeling the performance of modern multi-queue (MQ) SSDs as well as traditional SATA based SSDs. MQSim faithfully models new high-bandwidth protocol implementations, steady-state SSD conditions, and the full end-to-end latency of requests in modern SSDs. It is described in detail in the FAST 2018 paper by Arash Tavakkol et al., "MQSim: A Framework for Enabling Realistic Studies of Modern Multi-Queue SSD Devices" (https://people.inf.ethz.ch/omutlu/pub/MQSim-SSD-simulation-framework_fast18.pdf)
Hi, I'm writing this because I'm just wondering what do you think about my problem which is related to MQSim. Let me get to the point directly.
As shown in your FAST18 paper's figure 10 and the experimental results I made from MQSim, the latency (I mean, device response time in MQSim's result XML file) of small size (e.g., 8kB) is smaller than that of a large request size (e.g., 512KB).
However, figure 3 of the paper from NVMOS'20 [1] showed that the latency of 4KB is much larger than that of 128KB on both ZNS and traditional SSD. And they said that this is because of SSD's internal parallelism.
It seems that this paper shows the opposite results from yours.
I took a look at your source code and it looks like your code also considers the internal parallelism of SSD. But I don't know why they have different results, I mean totally opposite.
So I just wonder what do you think about this.
Is there anything I understood wrong? if so, please let me know.
[1] Exploring Performance Characteristics of ZNS SSDs: Observation and implication.
Hi, I'm writing this because I'm just wondering what do you think about my problem which is related to MQSim. Let me get to the point directly.
As shown in your FAST18 paper's figure 10 and the experimental results I made from MQSim, the latency (I mean, device response time in MQSim's result XML file) of small size (e.g., 8kB) is smaller than that of a large request size (e.g., 512KB). However, figure 3 of the paper from NVMOS'20 [1] showed that the latency of 4KB is much larger than that of 128KB on both ZNS and traditional SSD. And they said that this is because of SSD's internal parallelism. It seems that this paper shows the opposite results from yours. I took a look at your source code and it looks like your code also considers the internal parallelism of SSD. But I don't know why they have different results, I mean totally opposite. So I just wonder what do you think about this. Is there anything I understood wrong? if so, please let me know.
[1] Exploring Performance Characteristics of ZNS SSDs: Observation and implication.
Exploring Performance Characteristics of ZNS SSDs Observation and Implication_2020_Shin et al copy.pdf