Greetings all,
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:05 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 1:11 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have always observed the case with LIO SE/iSCSI target mode ...
>
> Hello Nicholas,
>
> Are you sure that the LIO-SE kernel module source code
On Feb 6, 2008 1:11 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have always observed the case with LIO SE/iSCSI target mode ...
Hello Nicholas,
Are you sure that the LIO-SE kernel module source code is ready for
inclusion in the mainstream Linux kernel ? As you know I tried to test
t
--- On Fri, 2/8/08, Nicholas A. Bellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there an open iSCSI Target implementation which
> does NOT
> > issue commands to sub-target devices via the SCSI
> mid-layer, but
> > bypasses it completely?
> >
> >Luben
> >
>
> Hi Luben,
>
> I am guessing you mean
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 12:37 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Is there an open iSCSI Target implementation which does NOT
> issue commands to sub-target devices via the SCSI mid-layer, but
> bypasses it completely?
>
>Luben
>
Hi Luben,
I am guessing you mean futher down the stack, which I don't
Is there an open iSCSI Target implementation which does NOT
issue commands to sub-target devices via the SCSI mid-layer, but
bypasses it completely?
Luben
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo inf
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 14:13 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Since the focus of this thread shifted somewhat in the last few
> messages, I'll try to summarize what has been discussed so far:
> - There was a number of participants who joined this discussion
> spontaneously. This suggests that there
Since the focus of this thread shifted somewhat in the last few
messages, I'll try to summarize what has been discussed so far:
- There was a number of participants who joined this discussion
spontaneously. This suggests that there is considerable interest in
networked storage and iSCSI.
- It has b
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 10:29 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:09:15 +0100
> Matteo Tescione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 5-02-2008 14:38, "FUJITA Tomonori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
> > > Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:09:15 +0100
Matteo Tescione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5-02-2008 14:38, "FUJITA Tomonori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
> > Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> James Bottomley schrieb:
> >>
> >>> These are both
On 5-02-2008 14:38, "FUJITA Tomonori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
> Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> James Bottomley schrieb:
>>
>>> These are both features being independently worked on, are they not?
>>> Even if they weren't, the combinatio
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:07:07 +0100
Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori schrieb:
> > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
> > Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> James Bottomley schrieb:
> >>
> >>> These are both features being independently worked on,
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 17:07 +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori schrieb:
> > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
> > Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> James Bottomley schrieb:
> >>
> >>> These are both features being independently worked on, are they not?
> >>> E
FUJITA Tomonori schrieb:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Bottomley schrieb:
These are both features being independently worked on, are they not?
Even if they weren't, the combination of the size of SCST in kernel plus
the problem of havin
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:07:01 -0600
"Chris Weiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 11:30 AM, Douglas Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > >> better. So for example, I personally suspect that ATA-over-ethernet is
> > >> way
> > >> better than some crazy SCSI-over-TCP
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:43:10 +0100
Matteo Tescione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> And sorry for intrusion, i am not a developer but i work everyday with iscsi
> and i found it fantastic.
> Altough Aoe, Fcoe and so on could be better, we have to look in real world
> implementations what is
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Bottomley schrieb:
>
> > These are both features being independently worked on, are they not?
> > Even if they weren't, the combination of the size of SCST in kernel plus
> > the problem of having to find a m
James Bottomley schrieb:
These are both features being independently worked on, are they not?
Even if they weren't, the combination of the size of SCST in kernel plus
the problem of having to find a migration path for the current STGT
users still looks to me to involve the greater amount of work
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 05:43 +0100, Matteo Tescione wrote:
> Hi all,
> And sorry for intrusion, i am not a developer but i work everyday with iscsi
> and i found it fantastic.
> Altough Aoe, Fcoe and so on could be better, we have to look in real world
> implementations what is needed *now*, and if
Hi all,
And sorry for intrusion, i am not a developer but i work everyday with iscsi
and i found it fantastic.
Altough Aoe, Fcoe and so on could be better, we have to look in real world
implementations what is needed *now*, and if we look at vmware world,
virtual iron, microsoft clustering etc, the
On Feb 4, 2008 11:30 AM, Douglas Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >> better. So for example, I personally suspect that ATA-over-ethernet is way
> >> better than some crazy SCSI-over-TCP crap, but I'm biased for simple and
> >> low-level, and against those crazy SCSI people to
On lunedì 4 febbraio 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So from a purely personal standpoint, I'd like to say that I'm not really
> interested in iSCSI (and I don't quite know why I've been cc'd on this
> whole discussion) and think that other approaches are potentially *much*
> better. So for example,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
David Dillow wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 18:08 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
If anyone has a suggestion for a better test than dd to compare the
performance of SCSI storage protocols, please let it know.
xdd on /dev/sda, sdb, etc. using -dio to do direct IO seems to work
decently, though it
Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 18:08 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> If anyone has a suggestion for a better test than dd to compare the
> performance of SCSI storage protocols, please let it know.
xdd on /dev/sda, sdb, etc. using -dio to do direct IO seems to work
decently, though it is hard (ie, impossi
Bart Van Assche wrote:
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.
This is true of the file systems when physically directly connected to
the unit as well. Some file systems ar
On Jan 31, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
Bart Van Assche wrote:
[...]
I can run disktest on the same setups I ran dd on. This will take some
time however.
Disktest was already referenced in the beginning of the performance
comparison thread, but its results are not very interesting if we are
going to
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:31:52 -0800
Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . . STGT read SCST read.STGT read
SCST read.
> . . performance performance . performance
performance .
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
