Re: [Xen-users] disk backend performance

[Ross Walker <rswwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 28, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Stefan de Konink <stefan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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)
There are many other reasons to pick iSCSI over AoE such as error  
recovery, error detection, transmission reliability, disk sharing via  
reserve/release or persistent reservations, different target types  
other than random access disk storage such as virtual/real tape  
drives, virtual/real optical drives and other SCSI based devices.
If you want cheap simple local storage that emulates SATA then AoE  
should fit the bill.
-Ross


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users