Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181102182123.29420-1-v.mayatskih@gmail.com> <6a7f1668-bf2d-0caa-2efd-c8fab5f1db24@redhat.com>
 <CAGF4SLg6+nt+zV4haXys4Wz2dWPDyx7xHXuA+h01NcQ94j0E1A@mail.gmail.com> <57eefa62-7e66-786d-441c-5dd6b0d451a5@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <57eefa62-7e66-786d-441c-5dd6b0d451a5@redhat.com>
From:   Vitaly Mayatskih <v.mayatskih@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:56:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGF4SLgkgjkLjmPWWJRBo44B+mcR4jRcjQ+PdqJuUGxZVuEECw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] vhost: add vhost_blk driver
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefanha@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:45 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> > Storage industry is shifting away from SCSI, which has a scaling
> > problem.
>
>
> Know little about storage. For scaling, do you mean SCSI protocol
> itself? If not, it's probably not a real issue for virtio-scsi itself.

Yes,  the protocol.

> >   I can compare vhost-scsi vs vhost-blk if you are curious.
>
>
> It would be very helpful to see the performance comparison.

I will try to find comparable hw with fast enough SAS SSDs. That one
was done with NVMe's sitting on the very bottom of storage topology.


-- 
wbr, Vitaly