From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Xen 4.5 Development Update (RC4) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:07:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20141226190720.GC19679@konrad-lan.dumpdata.com> References: <20141216161352.504FA124EF2@laptop.dumpdata.com> <54906F2C.8030800@citrix.com> <20141216204900.GB11551@konrad-lan.dumpdata.com> <54944210.6050402@citrix.com> <20141219181447.GB7162@laptop.dumpdata.com> <549985D4.1040509@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <549985D4.1040509@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Xen-devel List List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 03:10:12PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 19/12/2014 18:14, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 03:19:44PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> > >>There will be another full nightly test happening tonight (based on c/s > >>7e88c23 "libxl: Tell qemu to use raw format when using a tapdisk"), and > >>some stress and scale tests if time allows. > >Yeey! thank you for getting to this! > > Results are in from the latest nighties, and looking good. No identifiable > differences between Xen 4.4 and 4.5 Yeey! Thank you for testing that. > > There are also no identified differences in the scale and performance tests. That is good and also .. a bit surprising. We did have features to take advantage of huge boxes. Are these tests mostly the normal set of 'guest workload'? > > ~Andrew