Re: XP installation speed: KVM vs Xen

[Andrew Olney <aolney-lg4TTeReta+Vc3sceRu5cw@public.gmane.org>]

The Xen installed image is "Standard PC". I erased the KVM installed
image unfortunately, so  I can't check that easily.

The KVM installed image did require the -no-acpi flag, and the Xen image
does not, so that is consistent with your explanation: the Xen install
is a faster, non-acpi HAL.

The speed difference is quite noticeable on a core 2 1.66


On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 18:40 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Andrew Olney wrote:
> > I'd almost swear that KVM is faster with an XP raw image that was
> > installed by Xen, than it is with a raw image installed by KVM.
> >
> >   
> 
> That may well be.  Perhaps the images have different HALs.
> 
> Compare the values under My Computer | Properties | Hardware | Device 
> Manager | Computer.  Maybe one uses the "Standard PC" HAL (faster)
> and 
> the other the ACPI HAL (slower).  You can also change HALs (required 
> reboot).
> 
> 
> > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:10 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >   
> >> Andrew Olney wrote:
> >>     
> >>> I've been migrating from Xen to KVM for a wide variety of reasons.
> >>>
> >>> I've noticed, however, that XP installs much much faster with Xen
> (3.03
> >>> xen-image-xen0-2.6.17-6-generic-xen0 ubuntu) than with KVM (14).
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> btw, as both Xen and kvm use qemu, Xen full virtualization images
> should 
> >> work without change in kvm.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
> 
> 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV