WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Xen

xen-users

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs

To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs
From: Christian Zoffoli <czoffoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2011年1月26日 23:10:12 +0100
Cc: James Harper <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Bifulco <roberto.bifulco2@xxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: 2011年1月26日 14:13:14 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D01BB9292@trantor >
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <994429490908070648s69eed40eua19efc43c3eb85a7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D3FF9BC.40601@xxxxxxxxxxx> <sig.4007da378a.AANLkTiku=-RhcyUZVHmwnJ18+Az6Fk5CxdEjKdHQKJ54@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D4032C7.9000003@xxxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTin+K5G10_03qLRT_yqCRELu339roLEHy1bVFoqR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D40424B.4090808@xxxxxxxxxxx><AANLkTinRdUNC-4PNsF=sKtUvm7SBRc=-LnYX9S8rYTHG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D4064CD.8010005@xxxxxxxxxxx> <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D01BB9292@trantor >
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110105 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
Il 26/01/2011 22:24, James Harper ha scritto:
>>
>> iSCSI tipically has a quite big overhead due to the protocol, FC, SAS,
>> native infiniband, AoE have very low overhead.
>>
>
> For iSCSI vs AoE, that isn't as true as you might think. TCP offload can
> take care of a lot of the overhead. Any server class network adapter
> these days should allow you to send 60kb packets to the network adapter
> and it will take care of the segmentation, while AoE would be limited to
> MTU sized packets. With AoE you need to checksum every packet yourself
> while with iSCSI it is taken care of by the network adapter.
the overhead is 10% on a gigabit link and when you speak about resources
overhead you have mention also the CPU overhead on the storage side.
If you check the datasheets of brands like emc you can see that the same
storage platform is sold in iSCSI and FC version ...on the first one you
can use less than half the servers you can use with the last one.
Every new entry level storage is based on std hardware without any hw
acceleration ...for example EMC AX storages are simply xeon servers.
Christian
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: [Xen-users] domU gets freeze at boot , Gustavo Soto Ridd
Next by Date: Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs , Javier Guerra Giraldez
Previous by Thread: RE: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs , James Harper
Next by Thread: Re: [Xen-users] iscsi vs nfs for xen VMs , Javier Guerra Giraldez
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Copyright ©, Citrix Systems Inc. All rights reserved. Legal and Privacy
Citrix This site is hosted by Citrix

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /