Re: [Xen-users] disk backend performance

[Stefan de Konink <stefan@xxxxxxxxx>]

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)

Stefan


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