Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? (either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/ We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth switching over. BTW: gnbd works great, but I wish it used checksums over and above the ip csum / ethernet crc32. Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ian Pratt wrote:> Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? > (either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/ > > We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack > http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance > isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth > switching over. >You will need to switch sooner or later since the cisco driver as you know it is about to die. What help is needed in this area?> BTW: gnbd works great, but I wish it used checksums over and above the > ip csum / ethernet crc32. > > Cheers, > Ian > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Mike Christie wrote:> Ian Pratt wrote: > > Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? > > (either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/ > > > > We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack > > http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance > > isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth > > switching over. > > > > > You will need to switch sooner or later since the cisco driver as you > know it is about to die.Odd, seeing as how it''s now part of 2.6.11. (yes, I know you are listed at the author) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
I''ve looked at it, but had some issues building it. If the cisco initiator is going away I''ll definitely give it a spin this week. -Kip On Apr 10, 2005 12:04 PM, Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:> > Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? > (either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/ > > We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack > http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance > isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth > switching over. > > BTW: gnbd works great, but I wish it used checksums over and above the > ip csum / ethernet crc32. > > Cheers, > Ian >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Adam Heath wrote:> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Mike Christie wrote: > > >>Ian Pratt wrote: >> >>>Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? >>>(either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/ >>> >>>We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack >>>http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance >>>isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth >>>switching over. >>> >> >> >>You will need to switch sooner or later since the cisco driver as you >>know it is about to die. > > > Odd, seeing as how it''s now part of 2.6.11. >The cisco driver should not be in there. What filename? The iSCSI transport class is in 2.6.11. That is just common code though. open-iscsi is in some -mm versions.> (yes, I know you are listed at the author) > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? > (either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/I''d never even heard of it, and I''ve looked hard for iscsi initiators... my search skills obviously aren''t what they used to be!!!> We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack > http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance > isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth > switching over.I''m using the cisco stack too, remote boot is a PITA but otherwise it runs well, and I can even do a reboot of the target (iet) and linux-iscsi picks up the pieces quite nicely. The unh initiator remote boots very nicely but I couldn''t make it play with iet, and it didn''t cope with the target going down and coming back up again. I''ll download and build the open-iscsi initiator now! James _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Ian Pratt wrote:> > Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? > (either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/ > > We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack > http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance > isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth > switching over.Anyone have pointers on an uptodate iscsi target? Most I find are old. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > Anyone have pointers on an uptodate iscsi target? Most I find areold.>I''m using the ''Enterprise Target'' (http://sourceforge.net/projects/iscsitarget) which is the only one I''ve found that makes claims to greatness. The only other one I''m aware of is the unh target but according to the docs that target was only created to test the unh initiator against. I''ve had no problems with it in terms of reliability, but haven''t really measured performance. I''m only using gigabit ethernet though. James _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Adam Heath wrote:> > Anyone have pointers on an uptodate iscsi target? Most I find are old.How about: http://iscsitarget.sourceforge.net/ It''s been about six months since I used it last, but back then it worked really well. Best regards, Jacob _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Am Sonntag, den 10.04.2005, 20:04 +0100 schrieb Ian Pratt:> Has anyone got any experience using the new ''open-iscsi'' initiator? > (either on Xen or native) http://www.open-iscsi.org/ > > We''ve been using the cisco iscsi stack > http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/ for some time, but the performance > isn''t great. open-iscsi claims good performance, so it might be worth > switching over.Is there a introducing comparison of the different network blockdevice techniques like NBD/ENBD/GNBD, DRDB or iSCSI? You seem to prefer iSCSI - why? Is network blockdevice sharing (that''s meant with "multipath", right?) necessary for "xm migrate"?> BTW: gnbd works great, but I wish it used checksums over and above the > ip csum / ethernet crc32.As the ethernet checksum is (afaik) over the hole frame it should be ok as long as GNDB is done within a L2 segment, correct? /nils. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> You don''t require multipath for migration, e.g. if your rootfs is > available via GNBD or iSCSI. If you''re trying to do something fancy with > network mirroring then DRDB works OK, but true in-kernel mutipath > support would probably be better.Didn''t a patch for in kernel multipath get submitted recently? I thought it was being merged fairly soon (i.e. I thought it was in Linus'' tree).> > As the ethernet checksum is (afaik) over the hole frame it > > should be ok as long as GNDB is done within a L2 segment, correct? > > Depends how paranoid you are. > Having block-level CRCs makes me feel safer.It''s not paranoia if they are out to get you ;-) Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> Is there a introducing comparison of the different network > blockdevice techniques like NBD/ENBD/GNBD, DRDB or iSCSI? You > seem to prefer iSCSI > - why?GNBD is definitely the best of the *NBD''s. DRDB is good for network mirroring. iSCSI is the preferred option if you have access to a hardware target, otherwise you might use GNBD.> Is network blockdevice sharing (that''s meant with > "multipath", right?) necessary for "xm migrate"?You don''t require multipath for migration, e.g. if your rootfs is available via GNBD or iSCSI. If you''re trying to do something fancy with network mirroring then DRDB works OK, but true in-kernel mutipath support would probably be better.> > BTW: gnbd works great, but I wish it used checksums over > and above the > > ip csum / ethernet crc32. > > As the ethernet checksum is (afaik) over the hole frame it > should be ok as long as GNDB is done within a L2 segment, correct?Depends how paranoid you are. Having block-level CRCs makes me feel safer. Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, James Harper wrote:> I''m using the ''Enterprise Target'' > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/iscsitarget) which is the only one I''ve > found that makes claims to greatness. The only other one I''m aware of is > the unh target but according to the docs that target was only created to > test the unh initiator against.Hmm, yeah, that seems easy to get going. I''ll make a debian package. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel