Comments on: Microsoft and Intel Pushing iSCSI Performance Limits http://gestaltit.com/all/tech/storage/stephen/microsoft-and-intel-pushing-iscsi-performance-limits/ Independent Experts United Sat, 19 May 2012 16:19:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John http://gestaltit.com/all/tech/storage/stephen/microsoft-and-intel-pushing-iscsi-performance-limits/comment-page-1/#comment-656 John Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:10:46 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=2590#comment-656 Possibly the iSCSI SAN you mention had been tuned specifically for a benchmark whereas the FC arrays were just humming along in production. <br><br>Performance after all is related not just to the transport medium but also the application, filesystem, I/O stream and backend spindle count.<br><br>With the statement above you're just perpetuating the mis information spread by both camps. You offer no comparison of the systems or workloads used in either example. <br><br>I'm not in either camp but I've seen FC arrays regularly push well over 1Gb per port even back in the era of 2Gb FC. Possibly the iSCSI SAN you mention had been tuned specifically for a benchmark whereas the FC arrays were just humming along in production.

Performance after all is related not just to the transport medium but also the application, filesystem, I/O stream and backend spindle count.

With the statement above you're just perpetuating the mis information spread by both camps. You offer no comparison of the systems or workloads used in either example.

I'm not in either camp but I've seen FC arrays regularly push well over 1Gb per port even back in the era of 2Gb FC.

]]> By: John http://gestaltit.com/all/tech/storage/stephen/microsoft-and-intel-pushing-iscsi-performance-limits/comment-page-1/#comment-238 John Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:10:46 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=2590#comment-238 Possibly the iSCSI SAN you mention had been tuned specifically for a benchmark whereas the FC arrays were just humming along in production. <br><br>Performance after all is related not just to the transport medium but also the application, filesystem, I/O stream and backend spindle count.<br><br>With the statement above you're just perpetuating the mis information spread by both camps. You offer no comparison of the systems or workloads used in either example. <br><br>I'm not in either camp but I've seen FC arrays regularly push well over 1Gb per port even back in the era of 2Gb FC. Possibly the iSCSI SAN you mention had been tuned specifically for a benchmark whereas the FC arrays were just humming along in production.

Performance after all is related not just to the transport medium but also the application, filesystem, I/O stream and backend spindle count.

With the statement above you're just perpetuating the mis information spread by both camps. You offer no comparison of the systems or workloads used in either example.

I'm not in either camp but I've seen FC arrays regularly push well over 1Gb per port even back in the era of 2Gb FC.

]]>