On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:24 PM, benoit plessis
<plessis.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to share some infos about a "discovery" we made using mysql over
> iSCSI.
> We have a bunch of replicated mysql server, initially all using ext3, due to
> perfs problems we
> tried comparing persf in ext3 vs ext2, and we found the following:
> server using ext3
>         normal iops   100
>         normal bw      25/30Mbps
>         peak iops       1000
>         peak bw         45/52Mbps
> server using ext2
>         normal iops   40
>         normal bw      4/5 Mbps
>         peak iops       50
>         peak bw         7/8 Mbps
> All servers using the "noop" scheduler.
> The ext3 FS wasn't even using journalised datas, only the standard metadata
> configuration, but the
> impact on resource usage is quite impressive ....
> So the question is, what do you use as FS over iSCSI ?

Why are you using the noop scheduler on the initiator instead of
deadline or CFQ ? The performance difference you observed is probably
caused by something else than the filesystem. When running bonnie++ on
a local filesystem, xfs gives better performance than ext2, and ext2
gives better performance than ext3.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-iscsi@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi

Reply via email to