> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:31:52 -0800
> Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > . . STGT read SCST read . STGT read SCST read .
>> > . . performance performance . performance performance .
>> > . . (0.5K, MB/s) (0.5K, MB/s) . (1 MB, MB/s) (1 MB, MB/s) .
>> > . iSER (8 Gb/s network) . 250 N/A . 360 N/A .
>> > . SRP (8 Gb/s network) . N/A 421 . N/A 683 .
>>
>> > On the comparable figures, which only seem to be IPoIB they're showing a
>> > 13-18% variance, aren't they? Which isn't an incredible difference.
>>
>>Maybe I'm all wet, but I think iSER vs. SRP should be roughly
>>comparable. The exact formatting of various messages etc. is
>>different but the data path using RDMA is pretty much identical. So
>>the big difference between STGT iSER and SCST SRP hints at some big
>>difference in the efficiency of the two implementations.
>
>
> iSER has parameters to limit the maximum size of RDMA (it needs to
> repeat RDMA with a poor configuration)?
>
>
> Anyway, here's the results from Robin Humble:
>
> iSER to 7G ramfs, x86_64, centos4.6, 2.6.22 kernels, git tgtd,
> initiator end booted with mem=512M, target with 8G ram
>
> direct i/o dd
> write/read 800/751 MB/s
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=1M count=5000 oflag=direct
> dd of=/dev/null if=/dev/sdc bs=1M count=5000 iflag=direct
>
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org/msg13502.html
>
> I think that STGT is pretty fast with the fast backing storage.