From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nivedita Singhvi <nsnix@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Testing status of fully virtualized guests (Intel
	VT) on 32bit XEN unstable
Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 11:19:09 -0700
Message-ID: <445CE89D.2000101@comcast.net>
References: <445B743F.20609@virtualiron.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <445B743F.20609@virtualiron.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ed Smith <esmith@virtualiron.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Ed Smith wrote:

> 4. The RHEL3 UP tests ran OK however they took 12 hours
>    to complete where on RHEL4 UP the run for ~4 hours.
>    There seems to be some performance issue running a
>    2.4 kernel fully virtualized guest.

We've seen this, and is one of the factors driving the push for
a new device model for fully virtualized guests. I'm not sure if
anyone is looking into shorter term investigation/hacks for it
or taking 2.4 based guests very seriously at this point.

thanks,
Nivedita