From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757669AbZDNSKd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:10:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755729AbZDNSKH (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:10:07 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:65268 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757527AbZDNSKF (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:10:05 -0400 Message-ID: <49E4D17E.8020602@vlnb.net> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:10:06 +0400 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomasz Chmielewski CC: Bart Van Assche , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley , scst-devel , stgt@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] [ANNOUNCE]: Comparison of features sets between different SCSI targets (SCST, STGT, IET, LIO) References: <49D7AD54.4060408@vlnb.net> <49D7B122.50103@wpkg.org> <49D9D9A0.40106@wpkg.org> <49DA33EF.3020700@vlnb.net> <49DA49AA.1060106@wpkg.org> <49DE4243.5060004@vlnb.net> <49E46E73.8020703@wpkg.org> In-Reply-To: <49E46E73.8020703@wpkg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18rPrlNHiPQaRJ/dbLKESxh43++9ovA4gv8nVN xedbX4ELtN4xWy8aWjx/Nbhh5NL6ibgklaiDMVEYJNKDUdo6c2 xpLK23CS2bDNBfwKqWZiw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tomasz Chmielewski, on 04/14/2009 03:07 PM wrote: > Vladislav Bolkhovitin schrieb: > >>> Could anyone recheck if it's the same on some other system? >>> >>>> Which IO scheduler on the target did you use? I guess, deadline? If >>>> so, you should try with CFQ as well. >>> I used CFQ. >> You didn't apply io_context-XXX.patch, correct? With it you should see a >> noticeable increase, like in http://scst.sourceforge.net/vl_res.txt. > > I didn't apply this one. > > I used 2.6.26.x kernel and io_context-XXX.patch was for 2.6.27, 2.6.28 > and 2.6.29 only; 2.6.27 fails to apply to 2.6.26.8 kernel (perhaps in a > trivial way, I didn't check). Yes, io_context patch for 2.6.26.x kernels doesn't exist, because it isn't clear if it has the necessary functionality. But it's worth for you to upgrade to 2.6.27.x. Have you seen http://scst.sourceforge.net/vl_res.txt? Vlad