[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100824072557.GK2804@reaktio.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:25:57 +0300
From: Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>
To: Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:03:26PM -0400, Chetan Loke wrote:
> I actually received 3+ off-post emails asking whether I was talking
> about initiator or target in the 100K IOPS case below and what did I
> mean by the ACKs.
> I was referring to the 'Initiator' side.
> ACKs == When scsi-ML down-calls the LLD via the queue-command, process
> the sgl's(if you like) and then trigger the scsi_done up-call path.
>
Uhm, Intel and Microsoft demonstrated over 1 million IOPS
using software iSCSI and a single 10 Gbit Ethernet NIC (Intel 82599).
How come there is such a huge difference? What are we lacking in Linux?
-- Pasi
> Chetan Loke
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
> Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users
> worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and
> speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d
> _______________________________________________
> Scst-devel mailing list
> Scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scst-devel
--
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