Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
.
. . STGT read
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:10:06PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how are write speeds with SCST SRP?
for some kernels and tests tgt writes at 2x the read speed.
There is a fundamental difference between regular dd-like reads
Robin Humble wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:10:06PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how are write speeds with SCST SRP?
for some kernels and tests tgt writes at 2x the read speed.
There is a fundamental difference
Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
.
. . STGT read
On Jan 24, 2008 8:54 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ib_rdma_bw now reports 933 MB/s on the same system, correct? Those
~250MB/s difference is what you will gain with zero-copy IO implemented
and what STGT with the current architecture has no chance to achieve.
Yes, that's
On Jan 17, 2008 6:45 PM, Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's nothing particularly stunning here. Suspect Bart has
configuration issues if not even IPoIB will do 100 MB/s.
By this time I found out that the BIOS of the test systems (Intel
Server Board S5000PAL) set the PCI-e parameter
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
The big problem of stgt iSER is disk I/Os (move data between disk and
page cache). We need a proper asynchronous I/O mechanism, however,
Linux doesn't provide such and we use a workaround, which incurs large
latency. I guess, we cannot solve this until syslets is merged
Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 6:45 PM, Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's nothing particularly stunning here. Suspect Bart has
configuration issues if not even IPoIB will do 100 MB/s.
By this time I found out that the BIOS of the test systems (Intel
Server Board
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:33:13 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
The big problem of stgt iSER is disk I/Os (move data between disk and
page cache). We need a proper asynchronous I/O mechanism, however,
Linux doesn't provide such and we use a
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:33:13 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
The big problem of stgt iSER is disk I/Os (move data between disk and
page cache). We need a proper asynchronous I/O mechanism, however,
Linux doesn't provide such
On Jan 22, 2008 12:33 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the new SRPT/iSER numbers?
You can find the new performance numbers below. These are all numbers
for reading from the remote buffer cache, no actual disk reads were
performed. The read tests have been performed
Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 12:33 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the new SRPT/iSER numbers?
You can find the new performance numbers below. These are all numbers
for reading from the remote buffer cache, no actual disk reads
On Jan 22, 2008 4:26 AM, FUJITA Tomonori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, I recommend you to examine iSER stuff more since it has some
parameters unlike SRP, which effects the performance, IIRC. At least,
you could get the iSER performances similar to Pete's.
Apparently open-iscsi uses the
Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008 1:08 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
So, seems I understood your slides correctly: the more valuable data for
our SCST SRP vs STGT iSER comparison should be on page 26 for 1 command
read (~480MB/s, i.e. ~60% from Bart's result
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:36:18 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008 1:08 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
So, seems I understood your slides correctly: the more valuable data for
our SCST SRP vs STGT iSER comparison should be on page 26
On Jan 22, 2008 4:26 AM, FUJITA Tomonori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, I recommend you to examine iSER stuff more since it has some
parameters unlike SRP, which effects the performance, IIRC. At least,
you could get the iSER performances similar to Pete's.
Documentation about configuring
On Jan 18, 2008 1:08 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
So, seems I understood your slides correctly: the more valuable data for
our SCST SRP vs STGT iSER comparison should be on page 26 for 1 command
read (~480MB/s, i.e. ~60% from Bart's result on the equivalent
On Jan 17, 2008 6:45 PM, Pete Wyckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's nothing particularly stunning here. Suspect Bart has
configuration issues if not even IPoIB will do 100 MB/s.
Regarding configuration issues: the systems I ran the test on probably
communicate via PCI-e x4 with the
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT.
Apparently the SCST target implementation performed far better than
the STGT target implementation. This makes me wonder whether this is
due to the design of SCST or whether STGT's performance can be
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT.
Apparently the SCST target implementation performed far better than
the STGT target implementation. This makes me
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT.
Apparently the SCST target implementation performed far better than
the STGT target implementation. This makes me wonder whether this is
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT.
Apparently the SCST
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT.
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST
We didn't run any real performance test with tgt, so I don't have
numbers yet. I know that Pete got ~900 MB/sec by hacking sgp_dd, so all
data was read/written to the same block (so it was all done in the
cache). Pete - am I right?
As already mentioned, he got that with IB SDR cards that
Erez Zilber wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have performed a test to compare the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:05 +0900:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100
Bart Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have performed a test to
27 matches
Mail list logo
