From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Theurer Subject: Re: KVM performance vs. Xen Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:33:06 -0500 Message-ID: <49F87332.4050902@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <49F8672E.5080507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A17E171DF3@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel To: "Nakajima, Jun" Return-path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:50990 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752914AbZD2PdV (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:33:21 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3TFSaqK002408 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:28:36 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n3TFXK0C055584 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:33:20 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n3TFXJOd017950 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:33:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A17E171DF3@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nakajima, Jun wrote: > On 4/29/2009 7:41:50 AM, Andrew Theurer wrote: > >> I wanted to share some performance data for KVM and Xen. I thought it >> would be interesting to share some performance results especially >> compared to Xen, using a more complex situation like heterogeneous >> server consolidation. >> >> The Workload: >> The workload is one that simulates a consolidation of servers on to a >> single host. There are 3 server types: web, imap, and app (j2ee). In >> addition, there are other "helper" servers which are also >> consolidated: a db server, which helps out with the app server, and an >> nfs server, which helps out with the web server (a portion of the docroot is nfs mounted). >> There is also one other server that is simply idle. All 6 servers >> make up one set. The first 3 server types are sent requests, which in >> turn may send requests to the db and nfs helper servers. The request >> rate is throttled to produce a fixed amount of work. In order to >> increase utilization on the host, more sets of these servers are used. >> The clients which send requests also have a response time requirement >> which is monitored. The following results have passed the response >> time requirements. >> >> The host hardware: >> A 2 socket, 8 core Nehalem with SMT, and EPT enabled, lots of disks, 4 >> x >> 1 GB Ethenret >> >> The host software: >> Both Xen and KVM use the same host Linux OS, SLES11. KVM uses the >> 2.6.27.19-5-default kernel and Xen uses the 2.6.27.19-5-xen kernel. I >> have tried 2.6.29 for KVM, but results are actually worse. KVM >> modules are rebuilt with kvm-85. Qemu is also from kvm-85. Xen >> version is "3.3.1_18546_12-3.1". >> >> The guest software: >> All guests are RedHat 5.3. The same disk images are used but >> different kernels. Xen uses the RedHat Xen kernel and KVM uses 2.6.29 >> with all paravirt build options enabled. Both use PV I/O drivers. Software used: >> Apache, PHP, Java, Glassfish, Postgresql, and Dovecot. >> >> > > Just for clarification. So are you using PV (Xen) Linux on Xen, not HVM? Is that 32-bit or 64-bit? > PV, 64-bit. -Andrew