[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinDY8hEABHaPsCC+3wGMCn0ZLcyfDa9U9jXJ3d4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:07:23 -0400
From: Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: landman@...lableinformatics.com,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>
> There is an important design difference between SCST and LIO: SCST by
> defaults creates multiple threads to process the I/O operations for a
> storage target, while LIO only creates a single thread per storage target.
> This makes SCST perform measurably faster.
>
Forget that. You could have discussed this if there were code reviews
or other mainline inclusion emails from James B. From what I have
heard, the decision was taken around 8-9 months back.
Would anyone like to either comment/validate/refute this please? If
not then I would kindly request these guys to stop taking us for a
test drive. And also I'm not sure when was the last time James B.
bench-marked our scsi-stack. Even if I ACK in the xmit-path then I
can't push more than 100K IOPs. But other folks have re-engineered our
linux-scsi stack and from what I've heard they can push > 300K+ IOPs.
So I would just ignore performance discussion because I don't think
folks have done even simple lame experiments in the last 1 year. Or
may be I'm completely wrong and so please enlighten me so that I can
re-run the tests.
> Bart.
>
Chetan Loke
--
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