Re: Lower than expected iSCSI performance compared to CIFS

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

 



On Mon, 19 August 2013 12:36:43 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 22:43 -0600, Scott Hallowell wrote:
> 
> I recommend pursuing a few different things..
> 
> First, you'll want to bump the default_cmdsn_depth from 16 to 64.
> 
> The second is to try with write cache (buffered writes) enabled.

Total agreement on these two.  Depending on the storage and initiator
even 64 might not be enough, so you can set default_cmdsn_depth even
higher, if it makes a difference.

Quite likely your results will still fall short of the samba
comparison.  I suspect some reasonably low-hanging optimizations in
the iscsi target stack, but don't have time to get on my ladder and
start picking.

My favorite starting point is "perf record -ag".  Take a look at the
top cpu consumers, especially locking functions.  Investigate anything
that doesn't make sense.

Another unlikely but possible problem is packet loss.  iscss seems to
handle bad networks less well than plain tcp.

Jörn

--
If every man who wrote a story which was indirectly inspired by Poe
were to pay a tithe toward a monument it would be such as would dwarf
the pyramids.
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux