Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754539Ab0HWTld (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:41:33 -0400 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 Message-ID: <4C72CEE4.7020104@vlnb.net> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:41:24 +0400 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100527 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... 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> In-Reply-To: <1282508953.3042.102.camel@mulgrave.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:SmDURXAUN/4IDaBEoy77cRRLZDB71c1GThx8xpga8R3 vq0p2JlukR1eBsrd6QekjIlbv8uCakbDP9ejrc/tCtIEZiI/gS y37Wh5Kscj0PF4LI+MW8Cm2+648+nHorJ+g2Y/YN647NIj0QF+ 4ZRM8/0Wa82MmOfJIj61dn2FSHCK8KlKGLkUSKm8kQTOgt9Xtp gcy5mFY/r63EmhU8/QJ5Q== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 967 Lines: 20 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 -- 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/