[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49DA33EF.3020700@vlnb.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:55:11 +0400
From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org>
CC: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
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)
Tomasz Chmielewski, on 04/06/2009 02:29 PM wrote:
> Bart Van Assche schrieb:
>
>> Hello Tomasz,
>>
>> It would be great if you could publish the details of your setup and
>> the tests you have run, such that we are able to reproduce the tests
>> and analyze the results further.
>
> Here it is.
>
> The target is running Debian Lenny 64bit userspace on an Intel Celeron 2.93GHz CPU, 2 GB RAM.
>
> Initiator is running Debian Etch 64 bit userspace, open-iscsi 2.0-869, Intel Xeon 3050/2.13GHz, 8 GB RAM.
>
>
> Each test was repeated 6 times, "sync" was made and caches were dropped on both sides before each test was started.
>
> dd parameters were like below, so 6.6 GB of data was read each time:
>
> dd if=/dev/sdag of=/dev/null bs=64k count=100000
>
>
> Data was read from two block devices:
> - /dev/md0, which is RAID-1 on two ST31500341AS 1.5 TB drives
> - encrypted dm-crypt device which is on top of /dev/md0
>
> Encrypted device was created with the following additional options passed to cryptsetup
> (it provides the most performance on systems where CPU is a bottleneck, but with decreased
> security when compared to default options):
>
> -c aes-ecb-plain -s 128
>
>
> Generally, CPU on the target was a bottleneck, so I also tested the load on target.
>
>
> md0, crypt columns - averages from dd
> us, sy, id, wa - averages from vmstat
>
>
> 1. Disk speeds on the target
>
> Raw performance: 102.17 MB/s
> Raw performance (encrypted): 50.21 MB/s
>
>
> 2. Read-ahead on the initiator: 256 (default); md0, crypt - MB/s
>
> md0 us sy id wa | crypt us sy id wa
> STGT 50.63 4% 45% 18% 33% | 32.52 3% 62% 16% 19%
> SCST (debug + no patches) 43.75 0% 26% 30% 44% | 42.05 0% 84% 1% 15%
> SCST (fullperf + patches) 45.18 0% 25% 33% 42% | 44.12 0% 81% 2% 17%
>
>
> 3. Read-ahead on the initiator: 16384; md0, crypt - MB/s
>
> md0 us sy id wa | crypt us sy id wa
> STGT 56.43 3% 55% 2% 40% | 46.90 3% 90% 3% 4%
> SCST (debug + no patches) 73.85 0% 58% 1% 41% | 42.70 0% 85% 0% 15%
> SCST (fullperf + patches) 76.27 0% 63% 1% 36% | 42.52 0% 85% 0% 15%
Good! You proved that:
1. SCST is capable to work much better than STGT: 35% for md and 37% for
crypt considering maximum values.
2. Default read-ahead size isn't appropriate for remote data access
cases and should be increased. I slowly have been discussing it in past
few months with Wu Fengguang, the read-ahead maintainer.
Which IO scheduler on the target did you use? I guess, deadline? If so,
you should try with CFQ as well.
Thanks,
Vlad
--
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