AAAAAH! my apologies. It seemed very odd, so I reviewed, and discovered that I 
messed up my testing of direct lun.

updated results are improved from my previous email, but not any better than 
going through normal storage domain.

18156: 61.714: IO Summary: 110396 ops, 1836.964 ops/s, (921/907 r/w),   
3.6mb/s,    949us cpu/op,  27.3ms latency

17095: 61.794: IO Summary: 123458 ops, 2052.922 ops/s, (1046/996 r/w),   
4.0mb/s,    858us cpu/op,  60.4ms latency



----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Brown" <pbr...@medata.com>
To: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonz...@redhat.com>
Cc: "Nir Soffer" <nsof...@redhat.com>, "users" <users@ovirt.org>, "qemu-block" 
<qemu-bl...@nongnu.org>, "Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefa...@redhat.com>, "Sergio Lopez 
Pascual" <s...@redhat.com>, "Mordechai Lehrer" <mleh...@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 4:30:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] very very bad iscsi performance

FYI, I just tried it with direct lun.

it is as bad or worse.
I dont know about that sg io vs qemu initiator, but here is the results.


15223: 62.824: IO Summary: 83751 ops, 1387.166 ops/s, (699/681 r/w),   2.7mb/s, 
   619us cpu/op, 281.4ms latency
15761: 62.268: IO Summary: 77610 ops, 1287.908 ops/s, (649/632 r/w),   2.5mb/s, 
   686us cpu/op, 283.0ms latency
16397: 61.812: IO Summary: 94065 ops, 1563.781 ops/s, (806/750 r/w),   3.0mb/s, 
   894us cpu/op, 217.3ms latency

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list -- users@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html
oVirt Code of Conduct: 
https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: 
https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/users@ovirt.org/message/MAVOLDANXJCE6VEVZVYY7S4TUFF2BXEN/

Reply via email to