Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Mike Christie wrote: >> Hannes Reinecke wrote: > [ .. ] >>> Fsck. You are correct. >>> >> But you still might be hitting a problem where the target does not like >> data-outs when it closed the window. Maybe they interpreted the RFC >> differently. You should ask the HP target guys for more info. >> >> Also your patch might be working because I think it ends up throttling >> the connection, so IO does not timeout because pipes are backed up (the >> slow down from the throttling is one of the problems we hit with the >> patch I did before which was pretty much the same as you posted). >> > I actually had quite good results with it, so it can't be too bad :-) > IE the test HPs running continued for over a day, whereas previously > it'd stall after some hours. >
Yeah, I saw the bz update too. I tested your patch out here localy just to double check that is works like what we had before. With a istor target write throughput goes from 50 MB/s to 15 MB/s. It eventually dies (ping timeout) because the window is closed and it does not open until we finish sending the data-outs for the currently running commands. So READs are just fine. We hit the window closed check but we continue to make progress on the READs because data-ins are processed like normal and the window opens back up as commands are completed. So someone is doing something screwy. I am testing a EQL box locally now and will try some others just to double check. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 open-iscsi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
