On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:24 PM, benoit plessis <plessis.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wanted to share some infos about a "discovery" we made using mysql over > iSCSI. > > We have a bunch of replicated mysql server, initially all using ext3, due to > perfs problems we > tried comparing persf in ext3 vs ext2, and we found the following: > > server using ext3 > normal iops 100 > normal bw 25/30Mbps > peak iops 1000 > peak bw 45/52Mbps > > server using ext2 > normal iops 40 > normal bw 4/5 Mbps > peak iops 50 > peak bw 7/8 Mbps > > All servers using the "noop" scheduler. > > The ext3 FS wasn't even using journalised datas, only the standard metadata > configuration, but the > impact on resource usage is quite impressive .... > > So the question is, what do you use as FS over iSCSI ?
Why are you using the noop scheduler on the initiator instead of deadline or CFQ ? The performance difference you observed is probably caused by something else than the filesystem. When running bonnie++ on a local filesystem, xfs gives better performance than ext2, and ext2 gives better performance than ext3. Bart. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-iscsi" group. To post to this group, send email to open-iscsi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-iscsi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
