[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adazluoe2t3.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:31:52 -0800
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel
> . . STGT read SCST read . STGT read SCST read .
> . . performance performance . performance performance .
> . . (0.5K, MB/s) (0.5K, MB/s) . (1 MB, MB/s) (1 MB, MB/s) .
> . iSER (8 Gb/s network) . 250 N/A . 360 N/A .
> . SRP (8 Gb/s network) . N/A 421 . N/A 683 .
> On the comparable figures, which only seem to be IPoIB they're showing a
> 13-18% variance, aren't they? Which isn't an incredible difference.
Maybe I'm all wet, but I think iSER vs. SRP should be roughly
comparable. The exact formatting of various messages etc. is
different but the data path using RDMA is pretty much identical. So
the big difference between STGT iSER and SCST SRP hints at some big
difference in the efficiency of the two implementations.
- R.
--
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