On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:39:47PM +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Pasi Kärkkäinen, on 06/11/2010 11:26 AM wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:10:32PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>>> Pasi Kärkkäinen, on 01/28/2010 03:36 PM wrote:
>>>> Hello list,
>>>>
>>>> Please check these news items:
>>>> http://blog.fosketts.net/2010/01/14/microsoft-intel-push-million-iscsi-iops/
>>>> http://communities.intel.com/community/openportit/server/blog/2010/01/19/1000000-iops-with-iscsi--thats-not-a-typo
>>>> http://www.infostor.com/index/blogs_new/dave_simpson_storage/blogs/infostor/dave_simpon_storage/post987_37501094375591341.html
>>>>
>>>> "1,030,000 IOPS over a single 10 Gb Ethernet link"
>>>>
>>>> "Specifically, Intel and Microsoft clocked 1,030,000 IOPS (with  
>>>> 512-byte blocks), and more than 2,250MBps with large block sizes 
>>>> (16KB to 256KB) using the Iometer benchmark"
>>>>
>>>> So.. who wants to beat that using Linux + open-iscsi? :)
>>> I personally, don't like such tests and don't trust them at all. They 
>>>  are pure marketing. The only goal of them is to create impression 
>>> that X  (Microsoft and Windows in this case) is a super-puper ahead 
>>> of the  world. I've seen on the Web a good article about usual tricks 
>>> used by  vendors to cheat benchmarks to get good marketing material, 
>>> but,  unfortunately, can't find link on it at the moment.
>>>
>>> The problem is that you can't say from such tests if X will also 
>>> "ahead  of the world" on real life usages, because such tests always 
>>> heavily  optimized for particular used benchmarks and such 
>>> optimizations almost  always hurt real life cases. And you hardly 
>>> find descriptions of those  optimizations as well as a scientific 
>>> description of the tests themself.  The results published practically 
>>> only in marketing documents.
>>>
>>> Anyway, as far as I can see Linux supports all the used hardware as 
>>> well  as all advance performance modes of it, so if one repeats this 
>>> test in  the same setup, he/she should get not worse results.
>>>
>>> For me personally it was funny to see how MS presents in the WinHEC   
>>> presentation   
>>> (http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/E/6/5E66B27B-988B-4F50-AF3A-C2FF1E62180F/COR-T586_WH08.pptx)
>>>  
>>> that they have 1.1GB/s from 4 connections. In the beginning of 2008 I 
>>>  saw a *single* dd pushing data on that rate over a *single* 
>>> connection  from Linux initiator to iSCSI-SCST target using regular 
>>> Myricom hardware  without any special acceleration. I didn't know how 
>>> proud I must have  been for Linux :).
>>>
>>
>> It seems they've described the setup here:
>> http://communities.intel.com/community/wired/blog/2010/04/20/1-million-iop-article-explained
>>
>> And today they seem to have a demo which produces 1.3 million IOPS!
>>
>> "1 Million IOPS? How about 1.25 Million!":
>> http://communities.intel.com/community/wired/blog/2010/04/22/1-million-iops-how-about-125-million
>
> I'm glad for them. The only thing surprises me that none of the Linux  
> vendors, including Intel itself, interested to repeat this test for  
> Linux and fix possible found problems, if any. Ten years ago similar  
> test about Linux TCP scalability limitations comparing with Windows  
> caused massive reaction and great TCP improvements.
>

Yeah, I'd like to see this aswell.
I don't think I have enough extra hardware myself.. atm.

Does someone have enough boxes with 10 Gbit connections? :)

> The way how to do the test is quite straightforward, starting from  
> making for Linux similarly effective test tool as IOMeter on Windows  
> [1]. Maybe, the lack of such tool scares the vendors away?
>

I'm wondering how big effort it would be to fix IOmeter for linux.. 
iirc there were some patches to fix the AIO stuff.

> Vlad
>
> [1] None of the performance measurement tools for Linux I've seen so  
> far, including disktest (although I've not looked at newer (1-1.5 years)  
> versions) and fio satisfied me for various reasons.
>

What's missing from ltp disktest?

-- Pasi

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

Reply via email to