[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e2e108260801310908k516f588cv51c18486b4a495d2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:08:48 +0100
From: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
To: landman@...lableinformatics.com
Cc: "Vladislav Bolkhovitin" <vst@...b.net>,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
rdreier@...co.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "FUJITA Tomonori" <tomof@....org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel
On Jan 31, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Landman <landman@...lableinformatics.com> wrote:
> Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> > Actually, I don't know what kind of conclusions it is possible to make
> > from disktest's results (maybe only how throughput gets bigger or slower
> > with increasing number of threads?), it's a good stress test tool, but
> > not more.
>
> Unfortunately, I agree. Bonnie++, dd tests, and a few others seem to
> bear far closer to "real world" tests than disktest and iozone, the
> latter of which does more to test the speed of RAM cache and system call
> performance than actual IO.
I have ran some tests with Bonnie++, but found out that on a fast
network like IB the filesystem used for the test has a really big
impact on the test results.
If anyone has a suggestion for a better test than dd to compare the
performance of SCSI storage protocols, please let it know.
Bart Van Assche.
--
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