Visit Open-E website
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: iscsi performance

  1. #1

    Angry iscsi performance

    Hi All,

    I'm new here, i met a problem, the iscsi performance is descendant heavily, i used software RAID, created an iscsi volume based on RAID5, and then connect the target with windows initiator, and run 1MB sequency write test with iometer, it has 100MB/s mostly when the test starting, but after the test ran 12 hours, the speed is 50MB/s, Is there anybody has met the problem?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Since this can be directly related to hardware, some more details are needed here.
    Give us some specifics as to what you are testing, and what the settings are, in regards to your setup.

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi Gr-R, Thank you for your reply, we just test the iscsi volume performance to see what it can be used for.
    the hardware configuration is:
    Supermicro motherboard X7DCX
    4*2GB DDR2 physical memory, speed is 667 MHz (1.5 ns)
    LSI SAS 3081E-R
    Intel Dempsey/San Clemente/ICH9, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz
    2*1GB physical network adapter

    Thanks again!

  4. #4

    Default

    Here is the result of the iscsi volume performance with IOZONE on windows and linux.

    Linux: the iscsi volume formated the volume as ext3 with default parameters
    Writer Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 90152 99316 90032 92065 81018 85747 86212
    Re-writer Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 86036 85099 90097 87432 83687 81529 80045
    Reader Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 94822 97099 96894 97612 60799 60636 60795
    Re-reader Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 92670 97945 96336 97591 60543 60611 60505
    Random Read Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 7269 12359 17589 27667 41623 56222 65754
    Random Write Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 8905 10600 19286 33684 42681 54249 56901

    Windows 2k3: the iscsi volume formated as NTFS with default parameters

    Writer Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 8560 10600 12901 8223 6298 9974 6003
    Re-writer Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 31411 36873 43424 7099 6871 9749 5928
    Reader Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 52838 55762 54605 60310 69646 48959 56039
    Re-reader Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 59710 64809 59356 67408 70002 49021 56189
    Random Read Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 7068 8140 10155 18138 28435 33137 42907
    Random Write Report
    64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096
    4194304 8895 6726 9790 4423 7211 9649 5374

  5. #5

    Default

    According to the result, it's more and more better random write performance when the written date size changed from 64KB to 4MB on linux. but on windows, the random write performance is so poor, always below 10MB. Is there any operation need to do?

  6. #6

    Default

    What version are you running and is there Write Back option on the LUN? Is the Write cache enabled on the RAID controller?
    All the best,

    Todd Maxwell


    Follow the red "E"
    Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    935

    Default

    make sure firmware and dss are current versions.
    search the forum for this:

    MaxOutstandingR2T - 8
    MaxRecvDataSegmentLength - 262144
    MaxXmitDataSegmentLength - 262144


    and make the tweaks from the console.

    write back can help too.

  8. #8

    Default

    Hi Todd, Thanks for your reply, write back option on the LUN was enabled, and what's the meaning of the Write cache enabled on the RAID controller? I used the software RAID, not hardware RAID. thanks!

  9. #9

    Default

    Hi Gr-R, it's seems that the parameters you pointed had incorrect value, i will try it again with you suggestion, thank you very much!

  10. #10

    Default

    Hi Gr-R, I changed the configuration parameters, the performance did not improve. Is there any other reason?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •