On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:10:04PM +0300, guy keren wrote: > Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: >> 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. > > the AIO stuff inside IOMeter won't necessarily help, since the AIO > implementation in linux kernels is not efficient enough* > > * note: i'm only updated to kernel 2.6.18 - but i didn't here there was > a strong effort to make this better in newer kernels. correct me if i'm > wrong. >
So what's the actual problem? -- Pasi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-iscsi" group. To post to this group, send email to open-is...@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?hl=en.
