From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Thibault Subject: Re: Accessing the VNC using HVM stub domain - xen 3.3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:36:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20080911213634.GE5204@implementation> References: <20fe3cf60809110547s5e2f4ae4j64f92fed6b2b0898@mail.gmail.com> <20080911160028.GM4541@implementation.bordeaux.inria.fr> <20fe3cf60809111045h2d2a875ek49e5b1b76dc99637@mail.gmail.com> <20080911182439.GB5204@implementation> <20fe3cf60809111237o131dbb7fl6d226cd9425df990@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20fe3cf60809111237o131dbb7fl6d226cd9425df990@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Marco Sinhoreli Cc: xen-devel mailing list List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Marco Sinhoreli, le Thu 11 Sep 2008 16:37:41 -0300, a =E9crit : > Thans again,. Changing the subject, I'm impressed with the stub domain > performance! I did some benchmarks using bonnie++ and netperf and > it's better than pure fullvirt machine. > * netperf: > stub-hvm: 25.99 Kbits/sec > hvm: 15.23 Kbits/sec That's what I measured too indeed. > In bonnie++ benchmark, the item "write block" is impressive: > ....................Per char........Block........Rewrite > stub-hvm .....20898..........41857.......21045 > hvm .............19046..........17462.......19331 Is that disk performance? Samuel