From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: KVM performance Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:45:12 +0300 Message-ID: <49D9EB48.4030709@redhat.com> References: <133D9897FB9C5E4E9DF2779DC91E947C518348@SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: "BRAUN, Stefanie" Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44811 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755200AbZDFLpW (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:45:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <133D9897FB9C5E4E9DF2779DC91E947C518348@SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: BRAUN, Stefanie wrote: > Hallo, > > as I want to switch from XEN to KVM I've made some performance tests > to see if KVM is as peformant as XEN. But tests with a VMU that receives > a streamed video, adds a small logo to the video and streams it to a > client > have shown that XEN performs much betten than KVM. > In XEN the vlc (videolan client used to receive, process and send the > video) process > within the vmu has a cpuload of 33,8 % whereas in KVM > the vlc process has a cpuload of 99.9 %. > I'am not sure why, does anybody now some settings to improve > the KVM performance? > Is this a tcp test? Can you test receive and transmit separately? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function