Intel Ethernet Cloud White Paper
Sequential
Read: 120
Treads, 512k
block (GB/sec)
Sequential
Write: 120
Treads, 512k
block (GB/sec)
1.9
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
Random
Read: 240
Treads, 32k
block (IOPS)
Random
Write: 240
Treads, 32k
block (IOPS)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Max I/O Throughput
(MB/sec per port,
per direction)
940
920
900
880
860
840
820
800
780
760
740
Total CPU Consumption:
Server Side,
Worst Case:
(percentage of one core)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2 x 8Gb
Fibre Channel
10Gb Fibre
Channel over
Ethernet
Proof of Concept with Yahoo!
at EMC World, 2011 showed comparable
results between Fibre Channel over
Ethernet versus native Fibre Channel.
o
As a proof-of-concept test, Yahoo! compared the performance of Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) networking with native
Fibre Channel. The goal of this testing was to determine whether the cost and exibility advantages of FCoE were accompanied
by signicant trade-offs in read/write speed or throughput. The raw performance results are summarized in Figure A:
1
The primary conclusion drawn by the
team at Yahoo! is that FCoE provides
competitive performance versus Fibre
Channel, with comparable results in
some cases and improvements in others:
• Random I/O is about the same between
the two fabrics; transport capacity is
not a bottleneck.
• Sequential I/O throughput is improved
by 15 percent using FCoE relative to
native Fibre Channel; transport capacity
is a bottleneck.
• Transport capacity is improved by 15
percent using FCoE relative to native
Fibre Channel.
• The increased amount of processor
resources that FCOE consumes is
negligible compared to that consumed
by native Fibre Channel.
6