Chris Worley, on 01/09/2010 01:39 AM wrote:
I thought if the device was opened with the O_DIRECT flag, then the
scheduler should have nothing to coalesce.
Depends on how many I/Os your application has in flight at once,
assuming it is using AIO or threads. If you have more requests in flight
tha
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Chris Worley wrote:
> 3) In my iSCSI (tgt) results using the HCA as a 10G interface (not
> IPoIB, but mlnx4_en), comparing this to the results of using the same
> HCA as IB under SRP, I get much better results with SRP when
> benchmarking the raw device, as you'd ex
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 18:49 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Dillow wrote:
> > Does SRPT support the RDMA'ing the indirect buffer descriptors from the
> > Initiator such that it isn't constrained by the partial memory
> > descriptor list in the command request?
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Dillow wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 14:05 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > The SRP spec says that the target must specify the maximum message
> > size in the SRP_LOGIN_RSP information unit. The largest value one can
> > set the srp_sg_tablesize initiator
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 14:05 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> The SRP spec says that the target must specify the maximum message
> size in the SRP_LOGIN_RSP information unit. The largest value one can
> set the srp_sg_tablesize initiator parameter to is (max. SRP message
> size defined by the target
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Chris Worley wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Dillow wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 14:40 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM, David Dillow wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 17:16 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
>>> >> 1) I'm
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 18:07 -0500, David Dillow wrote:
> But this still isn't hurting you at the small request sizes we seem to
> be talking about. Or do you mean 58 KB, which is believable -- the
> default is 12, which guarantees a 48 KB request size is possible, and
> you'd only need a few pages
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 15:39 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Dillow wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 14:40 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
> >> I do set the ib_srp initiator "srp_sg_tablesize" to its maximum of 58.
> >
> > The max is 255, which will guarantee you can s
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Dillow wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 14:40 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM, David Dillow wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 17:16 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
>> >> 1) I'm seeing small block random writes (32KB and smaller) get bett
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 14:40 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM, David Dillow wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 17:16 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
> >> 1) I'm seeing small block random writes (32KB and smaller) get better
> >> performance over SRP than they do as a local drive
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM, David Dillow wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 17:16 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
>> 1) I'm seeing small block random writes (32KB and smaller) get better
>> performance over SRP than they do as a local drive. I'm guessing this
>> is async behavior: once the written dat
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 17:16 -0700, Chris Worley wrote:
> 1) I'm seeing small block random writes (32KB and smaller) get better
> performance over SRP than they do as a local drive. I'm guessing this
> is async behavior: once the written data is on the wire, it's deemed
> complete, and setting a sy
In shifting through a great deal of benchmark data collected from two
identical machines (including the attached drive array), I see the
following SRP anomalies:
1) I'm seeing small block random writes (32KB and smaller) get better
performance over SRP than they do as a local drive. I'm guessing
13 matches
Mail list logo
