Comments on: Thump Thump http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thump-thump The Blog of Ben Rockwood Sat, 18 May 2013 03:46:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Trudy http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2789 Trudy Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:35:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2789 Very interesting article: "Thump Thump" Very interesting article: “Thump Thump”

]]> By: industrial http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2788 industrial Mon, 26 May 2008 22:58:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2788 industrial industrial

]]> By: stromkern http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2787 stromkern Sun, 25 May 2008 14:57:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2787 stromkern stromkern

]]> By: viagra http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2786 viagra Thu, 22 May 2008 10:03:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2786 viagra viagra

]]> By: xanax http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2785 xanax Tue, 20 May 2008 03:40:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2785 xanax xanax

]]> By: teeny http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2784 teeny Thu, 15 May 2008 18:47:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2784 teeny teeny

]]> By: zithromax http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2783 zithromax Wed, 14 May 2008 23:54:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2783 shop zithromax welcome shop zithromax welcome

]]> By: Hambali http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2782 Hambali Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:36:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2782 Assuming you're using a set of channeled Gig-E interfaces, you'll be limited to only single port speed as both Etherchannel and LACP don't really trunk the interfaces together for a single IP. Both Etherchannel and LACP (to a lesser degree) use an algorithm to determine which interface of a channel will be used for a particular IP/TCP port based upon the last digit in the MAC address. If you're looking for high bandwidth, you should try a test with multiple iSCSI targets (i.e. different IP's). Not sure if this is guaranteed to work as the channeling algorithm may only look at the server's MAC which is mounting the LUNs. To take advantage of port channelling you really need to have a large mass of server going to the channelled interface. Then it will look like you're getting 4x bandwith (or whatever the channel size is). BTW, sequential I/O is a horrible test (as pointed out by Matt). What writes files in 1024 block sizes? Try something like 8k randoms (Database), or 32k sequentials for real world (copies). Assuming you’re using a set of channeled Gig-E interfaces, you’ll be limited to only single port speed as both Etherchannel and LACP don’t really trunk the interfaces together for a single IP.

Both Etherchannel and LACP (to a lesser degree) use an algorithm to determine which interface of a channel will be used for a particular IP/TCP port based upon the last digit in the MAC address.

If you’re looking for high bandwidth, you should try a test with multiple iSCSI targets (i.e. different IP’s). Not sure if this is guaranteed to work as the channeling algorithm may only look at the server’s MAC which is mounting the LUNs.

To take advantage of port channelling you really need to have a large mass of server going to the channelled interface. Then it will look like you’re getting 4x bandwith (or whatever the channel size is).

BTW, sequential I/O is a horrible test (as pointed out by Matt). What writes files in 1024 block sizes? Try something like 8k randoms (Database), or 32k sequentials for real world (copies).

]]> By: 卡诫魔 http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2781 卡诫魔 Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:11:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2781 Come to your blog just by chance! I am a CHINESE boy. best wish you come back to my space , thanks! 你是我进入的第一个国外blog，欢迎你来我的空间，谢谢！ Come to your blog just by chance! I am a CHINESE boy. best wish you come back to my space , thanks! 你是我进入的第一个国外blog，欢迎你来我的空间，谢谢！

]]> By: Lasse http://cuddletech.com/blog/?p=73#comment-2780 Lasse Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:39:00 +0000 http://cuddletech.com/wordpress/?p=73#comment-2780 iscsitgtd mmap's the entire size of it's target(s), at least that's the case when using filesystem based backingstores. What sort of throughput are you seeing and in which scenario? I've been playing around with it as well and haven't been able to push much through either. iscsitgtd mmap’s the entire size of it’s target(s), at least that’s the case when using filesystem based backingstores.

What sort of throughput are you seeing and in which scenario? I’ve been playing around with it as well and haven’t been able to push much through either.

]]>