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/
Home Products Support Community News


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 16:36:27 +0100
Cc: Xen Users <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Guillaume <guillaume.chardin@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:37:08 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20081128161831.H27234-100000@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: <20081128161831.H27234-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Am Freitag, den 28.11.2008, 16:22 +0100 schrieb Stefan de Konink:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Thomas Halinka wrote:
> > 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!
> My benchmarks for iSCSI vs NFS performance tests both saturate the links
> 10GE ->  1GE, while the first has a bit better < 10% performance.

A GBit-Link has a maximum throughput of 110 MB/s and you really got
about 100 MB/s? ;)

i think it was about maybe 65 MB/s

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


Waht is a SAN? It s a bunch of disk, some intelligence (striping,
mirroring,caching...) and a connection to servers.

It doesn't matter which protocol you 're using: FC, FCoE, AoE or iSCSI
to connect.

All of them implement a SAN for you.

The difference between those techniques is how data is transferred.

and in fc and aoe you only have 2 layers, which to have to be passed.
iscsi has more layers, that are passed and every layer which is passed
produces overhead.

so: less layers = less overhead = more performance.

> > >  and preferably stability comparisons.
> >
> > open-iscsi has no stable releases yet. aoetools do have. There are also
> > many users complaining about iscsi-kernel-issues....
> ...there is more than open-iscsi, in targets and initiators. (+ OS'es)

you're right, 
Linux seems to have better support for AoE than for iSCSI, which is
probably because AoE is simpler and has less peculiar bits. (There is a
certain enterprisey smell about iSCSI.)


> Stefan

Xen-users mailing list