[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:12:34 +0200
From: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org>
To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
iscsitarget-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
stgt@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] [ANNOUNCE]: Comparison of features sets between
different SCSI targets (SCST, STGT, IET, LIO)
Vladislav Bolkhovitin schrieb:
> Hi All,
>
> I set up http://scst.sourceforge.net/comparison.html page, which
> compares features of existing SCSI target subsystems for Linux. The
> comparison includes SCST, STGT, IET and LIO.
>
> I might be not fully correct somewhere, so, if you don't agree with me
> about some item(s) in the comparison table, please let me know and I
> will fix that.
Performance is a bit debatable.
I made some simple SCST and STGT tests last week, there were some where
SCST won, there were some where STGT won.
What was surprising to me, although STGT has a bigger CPU impact than
SCST, STGT was faster when reading from an encrypted (dm-crypt) volume,
on a system where the CPU is the bottleneck (it can't decrypt as fast as
HDD can deliver data).
STGT was much slower when reading from a non-encrypted volume, when
target had "blockdev --setra 16384 ..." for a given target.
On the other hand, STGT was faster than SCST with default blockdev
readahead settings (256).
If anyone's interested, I can show results in a readable form on Monday
(right now, I have only raw data which is pretty long and would be hard
to compare).
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists