From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 11 11:26:45 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787FDD8C
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:26:45 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from feld@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EF1E241F
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:26:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.45])
 by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26537239C6
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213])
 by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:26:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version
 :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to
 :references; s=smtpout; bh=bmy07s4vihHY3BfBZyMMIoCjjPk=; b=gKXJu
 DSjxbpEeWLlKhxDHVR6VPSxrk98E3m7Sa8bg7rJeuPO09o1/uk0ZU/lAZvPS+dis
 G80q8JfzpV8GOXVbn4afKLabzdj4U+g34W1ZiDB7rIZHYVZwRpR2VvX0Hy5qA7YF
 6UfzkErV6i7pyehe02WMBvzVopirHJN66BoogE=
Received: by web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99)
 id 03B5CB000CF; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1378898802.7360.20611953.59A82CBA@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: fkF8GqZQE9XKKHOqcb/f6E1wAzOkuvjgy9y6cPF8fGlb 1378898802
From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-15090c31
Subject: Re: TSO help or hindrance ?  (was Re: TSO and FreeBSD vs Linux)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:26:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <522FA71F.4000400@sentex.net>
References: <332980519.21486297.1378854243253.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
 <522FA71F.4000400@sentex.net>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:26:45 -0000

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013, at 18:11, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> 
> IIRC, the new iSCSI stack is currently tested more for correctness than
> performance?
> 

Yes, but it's in the kernel vs istgt which is all userland code. It
could very well be faster. I'm quite interested in seeing someone put up
some serious benchmarks.