From: Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
To: Zhao Forrest <forrest.zhao-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: James Dykman <dykman-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
dor.laor-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: PV network performance comparison
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:58:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47132B99.9070700@qumranet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac8af0be0710142234q19155a7aia00adf12d0c6e62a-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
Zhao Forrest wrote:
>
> When running KVM(kvm.rtl) and xen-HVM(xen.um) on the same machine, I
> feel that the guest OS on top of KVM is much faster responsive than
> the one on top of xen-HVM.
> But this test result showed that xen-HVM is more responsive than KVM.
> Weird. I onced tried KVM-36 and xen-3.0.1 and got such impression.
>
KVM certainly has an edge in latency because there are fewer layers and
schedulers involved. Regarding throughput, the numbers for kvm.rtl look
lower than expected while xen.um's numbers are unrealistically high.
The test needs to be done more carefully (using a recent kvm, too).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-15 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-11 21:30 PV network performance comparison James Dykman
[not found] ` <OF0BAE27C6.6B75A1D6-ON85257371.00749F3B-85257371.007646DD-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2007-10-11 23:12 ` Dor Laor
2007-10-15 5:34 ` Zhao Forrest
[not found] ` <ac8af0be0710142234q19155a7aia00adf12d0c6e62a-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2007-10-15 8:58 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2007-10-15 8:51 ` Avi Kivity
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47132B99.9070700@qumranet.com \
--to=avi-atkuwr5tajbwk0htik3j/w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=dor.laor-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=dykman-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=forrest.zhao-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox