Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:31:52 -0800
Roland Dreier <rdreier@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg13502.html

I think that STGT is pretty fast with the fast backing storage.

How fast SCST will be on the same hardware?

I don't think that there is the notable perfornace difference between
kernel-space and user-space SRP (or ISER) implementations about moving
data between hosts. IB is expected to enable user-space applications
to move data between hosts quickly (if not, what can IB provide us?).

I think that the question is how fast user-space applications can do
I/Os ccompared with I/Os in kernel space. STGT is eager for the advent
of good asynchronous I/O and event notification interfances.

One more possible optimization for STGT is zero-copy data
transfer. STGT uses pre-registered buffers and move data between page
cache and thsse buffers, and then does RDMA transfer. If we implement
own caching mechanism to use pre-registered buffers directly with (AIO
and O_DIRECT), then STGT can move data without data copies.

Great! So, you are going to duplicate Linux page cache in the user space. You will continue keeping the in-kernel code as small as possible and its mainteinership effort as low as possible by the cost that the user space part's code size and complexity (and, hence, its mainteinership effort) will rocket to the sky. Apparently, this doesn't look like a good design decision.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux