From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:51:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4AC27355.3090303@codemonkey.ws>
References: <4ABC6AA5.6080909@tauceti.net> <4ABF4E95.5070100@redhat.com> <4ABF5596.9050207@gmail.com> <4AC259DC.2080807@codemonkey.ws> <4AC260BB.3090906@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, RW <kvm@tauceti.net>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Matthew Tippett <tippettm@gmail.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.26]:19603 "EHLO
	qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751100AbZI2U6c (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:58:32 -0400
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so2037920qwd.37
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4AC260BB.3090906@gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Matthew Tippett wrote:
> Okay, bringing the leafs of the discussions onto this thread.
>
> As per
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2631_kvm&num=1&single=1 
>
>
> "The host OS (as well as the guest OS when testing under KVM) was 
> running an Ubuntu 9.10 daily snapshot with the Linux 2.6.31 (final) 
> kernel"
>
> I am attempting to get the actual "daily" snapshot to provide the 
> precise version.  I should have that information shortly.  It is 
> likely that it was within 1-2 weeks prior to the article posting.
>
>
> > Ubuntu's Karmic release has _not_ been released yet.  For this
> > particular test, Phoronix was probably using an alpha drop before
> > Ubuntu switched from kvm-84 to qemu-kvm-0.11.0.
>
> The "probably" was described above - it was a snapshot after the 
> 2.6.31 final as September 9th, the article was published on September 
> 21st, so there is a finite window.
>
> I have high confidence in the testing that Phoronix has done and don't 
> expect to need to confirm the results explicitly,

Your confidence is misplaced apparently.

> and I have pieced together the following information.  I should be 
> able to get the actual daily build number but broadly it looks like it 
> was
>
>   Ubuntu 9.10 daily snapshot (~ 9th - 21st September)
>   Linux 2.6.31 (packaged as 2.6.31-10.30 to 2.6.31-10.32)
>   qemu-kvm 0.11 (packaged as 0.11.0~rc2-0ubuntu to 0.11.0~rc2-0ubuntu5

That's extremely unlikely.

> But, if it turned out to be Ubuntu 9.10, linux 2.6.31, qemu-kvm 0.11 
> would there be any concerns?

It's not relevant because it's not qemu-kvm-0.11.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori