From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 14 12:45:53 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B130E106564A
	for <freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:45:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7141C8FC18
	for <freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:45:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32])
	by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp
	id 1KINR5-000H9k-PG; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:45:47 +0300
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2
To: Adrian Gschwend <ktk@netlabs.org>
Sbject: Re: iSCSI performance 
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:37:01 +0200 .
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:45:47 +0300
From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
Message-ID: <E1KINR5-000H9k-PG@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org
Subject: (no subject)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: SCSI subsystem <freebsd-scsi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-scsi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-scsi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-scsi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-scsi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-scsi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:45:53 -0000

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Danny Braniss wrote:
> 
> > 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  :-) 
> 
> ok ;) Did that (camcontrol), with the following result:
> 
> Operations performed:  6006 Read, 3994 Write, 12800 Other = 22800 Total
> Read 93.844Mb  Written 62.406Mb  Total transferred 156.25Mb  (1.4742Mb/sec)
>    94.35 Requests/sec executed
> 
> which is already a lot better but still below the IO of the local disk.
> Should I try more right now or should I wait for more progress in that?
> 
The numbers should be close to what you get via NFS :-(
a) sysctl debug.iscsi_initiator should be <= 3
b) can you send me the command line to run sysbench?

> Does it make sense to switch to -CURRENT for that?

no, it's runing ok on -stable and have not tried it on -current yet.

> 
> cu
> 
> Adrian
> 

danny