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 Bauer <stefan.bauer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] disk backend performance
From: Stefan de Konink <stefan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:54:10 +0100
Cc: Xen Users <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:54:48 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <49301783.2070107@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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> <49301783.2070107@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080914)
Stefan Bauer wrote:
Stefan de Konink schrieb:
My benchmarks for iSCSI vs NFS performance tests both saturate the links
10GE ->  1GE, while the first has a bit better < 10% performance.

Don't compare apples/oranges. iSCSI is a transport protocol and has
nothing todo with application layer stuff like NFS.

It was all bonnied ;) So I had a test with native iSCSI connectors (non-pv) and NFS (tap:aio). Clearly if both saturizes my links, and tap:aio takes more memory, iscsi is my winner.

(The main reason why I prefer layer 3, because I can use different subnets on the same target)


Xen-users mailing list