WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] disk backend performance

To: Stefan de Konink <stefan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] disk backend performance
From: Thomas Halinka <lists@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:15:39 +0100
Cc: Xen Users <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Guillaume <guillaume.chardin@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:16:18 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20081128153858.E24417-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20081128153858.E24417-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Stefan,

Am Freitag, den 28.11.2008, 15:41 +0100 schrieb Stefan de Konink:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Thomas Halinka wrote:
> 
> > Am Freitag, den 28.11.2008, 10:54 +0100 schrieb Stefan de Konink:
> > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Guillaume wrote:
> > >
> > > > I ask me some questions about xen disk backend performance. What is the
> > > > better backend to use to have the best ones.
> > > >
> > > > For me I tought its better to use phy: than disk: , because it's does'nt
> > > > need "encapsulation" to store data in and so, writing data is quicker. 
> > > > But
> > > > maybe i'm wrong.
> > > > Maybe some of you can give advise and more info about that !
> > >
> > > iSCSI + pvSCSI seems to be optimal I guess.
> >
> >
> > iSCSI is pretty slow, because of all the tcp-ip overhead. Try AoE since
> > its Layer 2 (Ethernet)
> 
> Please come with benchmarks,

i do not need any benchmarks. i measured that iscsi could saturate a
GB-Link with about 55-60% - AoE was about 80-85% at less CPU-Usage!

Why is FC faster than iSCSI? Ah, it s because of the protocol.

and why?
Because FC is layer2 like AoE
and iscsi is layer 3/4 - so much more protocol-overhead has to
processed.


>  and preferably stability comparisons.

open-iscsi has no stable releases yet. aoetools do have. There are also
many users complaining about iscsi-kernel-issues....

Just search the net for iscsi.problems on linux. 
>  Never
> the less, AoE would still process on dom0, while pvSCSI is directly done
> on the domU.

yep.

> Stefan

Thomas

[1] http://www.apac.edu.au/apac07/pages/program/presentations/Tuesday%
20Harbour%20C/Antony%20Gerdelan.pdf
[2] http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3189760067.html



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users