Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:17:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:17:31 -0500 Received: from stat8.steeleye.com ([63.113.59.41]:16900 "EHLO fenric.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:16:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:14:43 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Clements Reply-To: Paul.Clements@steeleye.com To: Edward Muller cc: Paul.Clements@steeleye.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Current NBD 'stuff' In-Reply-To: <1007507560.4520.19.camel@akira.learningpatterns.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4 Dec 2001, Edward Muller wrote: > Actually I am playing with ENBD now. Yep. I've looked at that too. > I think ENBD is targeted for inclusion in the kernel in 2.5, but it can > be found seperatly (sp) at http://www.it.uc3m.es/~ptb/nbd/ > > It looks much better than the nbd stuff that is currently in the kernel. A word of caution on this. I played around with ENBD (as well as some others) about 6 months ago. I also did some performance testing with the different drivers and user-level utilities. What I found was that ENBD achieved only about 1/3 ~ 1/4 the throughput of NBD (even with multiple replication paths and various block sizes). YMMV. I also looked at DRBD, which performed pretty well (comparable to NBD). > But that's mostly because Pavel doesn't have much time at the moment for > it AFAIK. Yeah. I wish I had the time to develop/maintain a network block device driver myself...but unfortunately I don't... :/ -- Paul Clements Paul.Clements@SteelEye.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/