Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 1:27 PM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, James, what is your opinion on the above? Or the overall SCSI target
project simplicity doesn't matter much for you and you think it's fine
to duplicate Linux page cache in the user space to keep the in-kernel
part of the project as small as possible?
It's too early to draw conclusions about performance. I'm currently
performing more measurements, and the results are not easy to
interpret. My plan is to measure the following:
* Setup: target with RAM disk of 2 GB as backing storage.
* Throughput reported by dd and xdd (direct I/O).
* Transfers with dd/xdd in units of 1 KB to 1 GB (the smallest
transfer size that can be specified to xdd is 1 KB).
* Target SCSI software to be tested: IETD iSCSI via IPoIB, STGT iSCSI
via IPoIB, STGT iSER, SCST iSCSI via IPoIB, SCST SRP, LIO iSCSI via
IPoIB.
The reason I chose dd/xdd for these tests is that I want to measure
the performance of the communication protocols, and that I am assuming
that this performance can be modeled by the following formula:
(transfer time in s) = (transfer setup latency in s) + (transfer size
in MB) / (bandwidth in MB/s).
It isn't fully correct, you forgot about link latency. More correct one is:
(transfer time) = (transfer setup latency on both initiator and target,
consisting from software processing time, including memory copy, if
necessary, and PCI setup/transfer time) + (transfer size)/(bandwidth) +
(link latency to deliver request for READs or status for WRITES) +
(2*(link latency) to deliver R2T/XFER_READY request in case of WRITEs,
if necessary (e.g. iSER for small transfers might not need it, but SRP
most likely always needs it)). Also you should note that it's correct
only in case of single threaded workloads with one outstanding command
at time. For other workloads it depends from how well they manage to
keep the "link" full in interval from (transfer size)/(transfer time) to
bandwidth.
Measuring the time needed for transfers
with varying block size allows to compute the constants in the above
formula via linear regression.
Unfortunately, it isn't so easy, see above.
One difficulty I already encountered is that the performance of the
Linux IPoIB implementation varies a lot under high load
(http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9883).
Another issue I have to look further into is that dd and xdd report
different results for very large block sizes (> 1 MB).
Look at /proc/scsi_tgt/sgv (for SCST) and you will see, which transfer
sizes are actually used. Initiators don't like sending big requests and
often split them on smaller ones.
Look at this message as well, it might be helpful:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/16/223
Bart Van Assche.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
