Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Jan 24, 2008 8:54 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ib_rdma_bw now reports 933 MB/s on the same system, correct? Those > ~250MB/s difference is what you will gain with zero-copy IO implemented > and what STGT with the current architecture has no chance to achieve. Yes, that

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Bart Van Assche wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: . . . STGT read

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Robin Humble wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:10:06PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: how are write speeds with SCST SRP? for some kernels and tests tgt writes at >2x the read speed. There is a fundamental difference betw

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:10:06PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: >> On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> how are write speeds with SCST SRP? >>> for some kernels and tests tgt writes at >2x the read speed. > > There is a fundamental difference between regular d

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Bart Van Assche wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 AM, Robin Humble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: . . . STGT read

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Bart Van Assche wrote: On Jan 22, 2008 12:33 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: What are the new SRPT/iSER numbers? You can find the new performance numbers below. These are all numbers for reading from the remote buffer cache, no actual disk rea

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Jan 22, 2008 4:26 AM, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First, I recommend you to examine iSER stuff more since it has some > parameters unlike SRP, which effects the performance, IIRC. At least, > you could get the iSER performances similar to Pete's. Apparently open-iscsi uses th

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Jan 22, 2008 12:33 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What are the new SRPT/iSER numbers? You can find the new performance numbers below. These are all numbers for reading from the remote buffer cache, no actual disk reads were performed. The read tests have been performed

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

FUJITA Tomonori wrote: On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:33:13 +0300 Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FUJITA Tomonori wrote: The big problem of stgt iSER is disk I/Os (move data between disk and page cache). We need a proper asynchronous I/O mechanism, however, Linux doesn't provide suc

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:33:13 +0300 Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > The big problem of stgt iSER is disk I/Os (move data between disk and > > page cache). We need a proper asynchronous I/O mechanism, however, > > Linux doesn't provide such and we use a

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Bart Van Assche wrote: On Jan 17, 2008 6:45 PM, Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's nothing particularly stunning here. Suspect Bart has configuration issues if not even IPoIB will do > 100 MB/s. By this time I found out that the BIOS of the test systems (Intel Server Board S500

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

FUJITA Tomonori wrote: The big problem of stgt iSER is disk I/Os (move data between disk and page cache). We need a proper asynchronous I/O mechanism, however, Linux doesn't provide such and we use a workaround, which incurs large latency. I guess, we cannot solve this until syslets is merged int

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Jan 17, 2008 6:45 PM, Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's nothing particularly stunning here. Suspect Bart has > configuration issues if not even IPoIB will do > 100 MB/s. By this time I found out that the BIOS of the test systems (Intel Server Board S5000PAL) set the PCI-e param

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Jan 22, 2008 4:26 AM, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, I recommend you to examine iSER stuff more since it has some > parameters unlike SRP, which effects the performance, IIRC. At least, > you could get the iSER performances similar to Pete's. Documentation about configurin

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:36:18 +0100 "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 1:08 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > So, seems I understood your slides correctly: the more valuable data for > > our SCST SRP vs STGT iSER comparison should b

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Bart Van Assche wrote: On Jan 18, 2008 1:08 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ ... ] So, seems I understood your slides correctly: the more valuable data for our SCST SRP vs STGT iSER comparison should be on page 26 for 1 command read (~480MB/s, i.e. ~60% from Bart's result

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Jan 18, 2008 1:08 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ ... ] > So, seems I understood your slides correctly: the more valuable data for > our SCST SRP vs STGT iSER comparison should be on page 26 for 1 command > read (~480MB/s, i.e. ~60% from Bart's result on the equivalent

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Pete Wyckoff wrote: I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT. Apparently the SCST target implementation performed far better than the STGT target implementation. This makes me wonder whether this is due to the design of SCST or whether STGT's performance can be improved

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Jan 17, 2008 6:45 PM, Pete Wyckoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's nothing particularly stunning here. Suspect Bart has > configuration issues if not even IPoIB will do > 100 MB/s. Regarding configuration issues: the systems I ran the test on probably communicate via PCI-e x4 with the Inf

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:05 +0900: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300 > Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100 > > > "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Hello, > > >

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

>> We didn't run any real performance test with tgt, so I don't have >> numbers yet. I know that Pete got ~900 MB/sec by hacking sgp_dd, so all >> data was read/written to the same block (so it was all done in the >> cache). Pete - am I right? >> >> As already mentioned, he got that with IB SDR ca

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

Erez Zilber wrote: FUJITA Tomonori wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300 Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FUJITA Tomonori wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100 "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I have performed a test to compare th

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300 > Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100 >>> "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello, I have performed a

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

FUJITA Tomonori wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300 Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FUJITA Tomonori wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100 "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT. A

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:48:28 +0300 Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100 > > "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Hello, > >> > >>I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT. >

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

FUJITA Tomonori wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100 "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT. Apparently the SCST target implementation performed far better than the STGT target implementation. This makes me

Re: Performance of SCST versus STGT

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:27:08 +0100 "Bart Van Assche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have performed a test to compare the performance of SCST and STGT. > Apparently the SCST target implementation performed far better than > the STGT target implementation. This makes me wonder whether th