From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:41:24 +0400 Message-ID: <4C72CEE4.7020104@vlnb.net> References: <594039.74663.qm@web111905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1282144271.3035.31.camel@mulgrave.site> <1282148296.3035.49.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C6C1D70.7020502@vlnb.net> <41A1E2691BBB412BADCDE5F515CD8EDA@usish.com.cn> <8A96806D-6CD7-44AD-8A9D-143C098C95A4@uni-paderborn.de> <1282256949.30453.278.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <4C701E08.2020005@vlnb.net> <1282423398.3015.39.camel@mulgrave.site> <1282508953.3042.102.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:60821 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750881Ab0HWTlc (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:41:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1282508953.3042.102.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Bart Van Assche , Dirk Meister , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Chetan Loke , Chetan Loke , scst-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley, on 08/23/2010 12:29 AM wrote: > So the phrase "up to GigE" was deliberately in the above to exclude the > disputed infiniband results. I'm not really interested in re-opening > the arguments over how to interpret those results. The fact that SCST > and STGT were on par up to 1GbE is enough to refute the contention that > STGT is "fundamentally slow". Well, James, why not 100MbE? If you want a comparison of target implementations you need a fast hardware with minimal latency. Otherwise, the difference between the implementations can drown in the overhead of the accompanying processing. 1GbE is a nearly 10 years ago interface. Or are we going to stay ten years behind progress? Thanks, Vlad