Re: [SPDK] Performance

On Dec 6, 2016, at 5:49 AM, Kumaraparameshwaran Rathnavel <krath@cloudsimple.com<mailto:krath@cloudsimple.com>> wrote: The setup is the default setup of NVMf target with Direct attached Subsystem. The FIO plugin was at the target side and the IOPS from SPDK was found to be around 2.5K and the IOPS from kernel was found to be 100k. Hi Param, Can you check the AcceptorPollRate setting in your configuration file? There was a recent fix to the default value for this parameter. You should set it to at least 10000 (10ms). https://github.com/spdk/spdk/commit/5f3761cf7ec50cf03183203dc50657a9f2a18908 Thanks, -Jim Regards, Param. On 06-Dec-2016, at 5:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin@gmail.com<mailto:andrey.v.kuzmin@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016, 15:24 Kumaraparameshwaran Rathnavel <krath@cloudsimple.com<mailto:krath@cloudsimple.com>> wrote: Hi All, Is there any benchmarking done to prove that SPDK is better than the Kernel driver? We did run the sample driver provided from the SPDK and compared with the kernel interface and found that SPDK is very slow. We did run FIO. It's worth publishing your setup and results first. Regards, Andrey Can you describe the setup for the performance measurement between Kernel and SPDK driver. Regards, Param. _______________________________________________ SPDK mailing list SPDK@lists.01.org<mailto:SPDK@lists.01.org> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk -- Regards, Andrey _______________________________________________ SPDK mailing list SPDK@lists.01.org<mailto:SPDK@lists.01.org> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk _______________________________________________ SPDK mailing list SPDK@lists.01.org<mailto:SPDK@lists.01.org> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk