iSCSI performance

[Danny Braniss]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> I finally invested some time to get iSCSI to work on FreeBSD. Now I do
> have an iSCSI disk mounted in the system so I started doing some
> performance tests against an NetApp FAS3020 head with an iSCSI LUN
> configured for my FreeBSD 7.0-stable box.
> 
> It's a rather old IBM server and I used sysbench to get some stats.
> 
> The results I got were:
> 
> local SCSI disk, UFS:
> - --
> Operations performed:  5999 Read, 4001 Write, 12800 Other = 22800 Total
> Read 93.734Mb  Written 62.516Mb  Total transferred 156.25Mb  (2.2672Mb/sec)
>   145.10 Requests/sec executed
> - --
> 
> 
> NFS share on the NetApp (no tweaking, default NFS mount):
> - --
> Operations performed:  6006 Read, 3994 Write, 12800 Other = 22800 Total
> Read 93.844Mb  Written 62.406Mb  Total transferred 156.25Mb  (11.948Mb/sec)
>   764.69 Requests/sec executed
> - --
> 
> 
> iSCSI with UFS:
> - --
> Operations performed:  6004 Read, 3996 Write, 12800 Other = 22800 Total
> Read 93.812Mb  Written 62.438Mb  Total transferred 156.25Mb  (489.41Kb/sec)
>    30.59 Requests/sec executed
> - --
> 
> which is a rather bad results for iSCSI ;)
> 
> Note that I didn't want to get the real performance so I just took the
> default sysbench lines I found in the docs. It was just to get something
> to compare to.
> 
> Googling a bit I found this posting here:
> 
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2008-February/003383.html
> 
> Is this patch in -CURRENT by now or do I still have to compile the stuff
> on my own if I want to do some more tests?
> 

the patches were for -STABLE, and I haven't seen them, but
before the patches, try increasing the tag opening, ie
camcontrol tags daX -N128
or via iscontrol (and yes it's not idiot proof, nor is is it
developer proof :-)

> And is anyone actively working on iSCSI right now? I do have some
> proposals regarding iscontrol as well, the tool is not yet idiot proof
> ;) What would be the appropriate list to post feedback regarding that?
absolutely!

> 
> next thing on my list is to try ZFS on the iSCSI share but I would like
> to see some better performance on UFS first :)
> 
> BTW in case you wonder why I want to use iSCSI: I am running a
> subversion server with rather big repositories using "fsfs" on NFS and I
> run into very weird PROPFIND problems (Apache frontent) when importing
> large quantities of data and I don't have the problem doing the same on
> a local drive of the server. So I guess that's some NFS locking stuff I
> couldn't get rid of.
> The idea is to replace that with iSCSI and ZFS (I love NetApps snapshot
> feature and I want that too in the future, so ZFS) once both is declared
> as stable (yes, I have time :)
> 
> cu
> 
> Adrian
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFId1d3qpMUYrZbQBERAhjfAJ96YsvsVyLgeRY3Ah54UM1jvwHKwgCeIaoM
> ibhoi7c6jovvBIF/jaI5IQ8=
> =mr7E
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-scsi at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-scsi
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-scsi-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>