AAAAAH! my apologies. It seemed very odd, so I reviewed, and discovered that I messed up my testing of direct lun. updated results are improved from my previous email, but not any better than going through normal storage domain. 18156: 61.714: IO Summary: 110396 ops, 1836.964 ops/s, (921/907 r/w), 3.6mb/s, 949us cpu/op, 27.3ms latency 17095: 61.794: IO Summary: 123458 ops, 2052.922 ops/s, (1046/996 r/w), 4.0mb/s, 858us cpu/op, 60.4ms latency ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Brown" <pbrown@medata.com> To: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com> Cc: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer@redhat.com>, "users" <users@ovirt.org>, "qemu-block" <qemu-block@nongnu.org>, "Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>, "Sergio Lopez Pascual" <slp@redhat.com>, "Mordechai Lehrer" <mlehrer@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 4:30:32 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] very very bad iscsi performance FYI, I just tried it with direct lun. it is as bad or worse. I dont know about that sg io vs qemu initiator, but here is the results. 15223: 62.824: IO Summary: 83751 ops, 1387.166 ops/s, (699/681 r/w), 2.7mb/s, 619us cpu/op, 281.4ms latency 15761: 62.268: IO Summary: 77610 ops, 1287.908 ops/s, (649/632 r/w), 2.5mb/s, 686us cpu/op, 283.0ms latency 16397: 61.812: IO Summary: 94065 ops, 1563.781 ops/s, (806/750 r/w), 3.0mb/s, 894us cpu/op, 217.3ms latency