On 15 Apr 2009 at 20:42, Bart Van Assche wrote: [...] > > 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.
Considering that most remote iSCSI targets have "intelligece" of their own, the use of a no-op i/O scheduler seems justified. I think multiple I/O schedulers on both ends don't necessarily make things faster, unless there is a bunch of requests that can be compacted into one. Then throughput rises while response may decline. So it very much depends on what you really want to have. Regards, Ulrich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
