linux-kernel - Re: [Scst-devel] [ANNOUNCE]: Comparison of features sets between different SCSI targets (SCST, STGT, IET, LIO)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49D9CF1A.3090702@wpkg.org>
Date:	Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:44:58 +0200
From:	Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org>
To:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
CC:	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	iscsitarget-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stgt@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] [ANNOUNCE]: Comparison of features sets between
 different SCSI targets (SCST, STGT, IET, LIO)

Vladislav Bolkhovitin schrieb:
> Tomasz Chmielewski, on 04/04/2009 11:12 PM wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The result "in average" was listed in the comparison. Of course, one 
> target can be better somewhere, another one somewhere else. That a 
> nature of storage: it's pretty hard to optimize for all at once.

True.


> BTW, if I remember correctly your logs, you didn't apply all the SCST 
> kernel patches on your kernel. Then your results aren't much applicable 
> to this comparison, because it assumes all SCST kernel patches applied.

I made three tests:
- STGT (with standard Debian Lenny kernel)
- SCST with default build options (i.e. no "make debug2perf"), no kernel 
patches (standard Debian Lenny kernel)
- SCST + "make debug2perf", with kernel patches (Debian Lenny .config + 
SCST patches and proper option enabled)

I'll post the results shortly.


-- 
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/