Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008 2:25 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Since this particular code is located in a non-data path critical
section, the kernel vs. user discussion is a wash. If we are talking
about data path, yes, the relevance of DD tests in kernel designs are
suspect :p. For those IB testers who are interested, perhaps having a
look with disktest from the Linux Test Project would give a better
comparision between the two implementations on a RDMA capable fabric
like IB for best case performance. I think everyone is interested in
seeing just how much data path overhead exists between userspace and
kernel space in typical and heavy workloads, if if this overhead can be
minimized to make userspace a better option for some of this very
complex code.
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 find out, which implementation is more effective, because in
the modes, in which usually people run this utility, it produces latency
insensitive workload (multiple threads working in parallel). So, such
multithreaded disktests results will be different between STGT and SCST
only if STGT's implementation will get target CPU bound. If CPU on the
target is powerful enough, even extra busy loops in the STGT or SCST hot
path code will change nothing.
Additionally, multithreaded disktest over RAM disk is a good example of
a synthetic benchmark, which has almost no relation with real life
workloads. But people like it, because it produces nice looking results.
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 stress test tool, but
not more.
Disktest is new to me -- any hints with regard to suitable
combinations of command line parameters are welcome. The most recent
version I could find on http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ is ltp-20071231.
Bart Van Assche.
-
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
-
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
