From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GvoPp-0002xK-E5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:18:25 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GvoPo-0002w3-A3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:18:25 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GvoPo-0002vy-4P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:18:24 -0500 Received: from [24.93.47.40] (helo=ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GvoPn-0007jv-VU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:18:24 -0500 Received: from vaio (cpe-66-68-31-100.austin.res.rr.com [66.68.31.100]) by ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBH5ILUU020833 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:18:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu speed vs vmplayer? From: Lonnie Mendez In-Reply-To: <26705.71.51.225.120.1166330232.squirrel@secure.emarketingnc.com> References: <10541fa50612130009s798a1587n4a3d2b8b51baa334@mail.gmail.com> <200612141645.40403.paul@codesourcery.com> <4582CBA6.6000809@tidetamerboatlifts.com> <200612151613.35422.paul@codesourcery.com> <45831FB1.4030907@tidetamerboatlifts.com> <25199.71.51.225.120.1166272989.squirrel@secure.emarketingnc.com> <26705.71.51.225.120.1166330232.squirrel@secure.emarketingnc.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:18:21 -0600 Message-Id: <1166332701.4138.4.camel@vaio> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 23:37 -0500, it@tidetamerboatlifts.com wrote: > Yeah, I said "I think" because I wanted to use a decent benchmark to > actually test the results. I threw in a test against VMPlayer as well. I > found that with USB tablet emulation, Qemu was approximately only half as > fast as it could operate without it. I did NOT perform these tests > without KQEMU for two reasons 1) the *concept* that USB tablet emulation > slows down Qemu can be shown either way and 2) I can't stand waiting > around for hours and hours while Qemu translates code, sorry. At this > particular time, I'm really only interested in this particular case > because I use it for production use and many non-developer users are > wanting to do the same thing. The only major difference that I found > between Qemu+KQEMU and VMPlayer was that VMPlayer is about 4x faster when > it comes to memory access. You can view my results at: > > http://www.calcmaster.net/qemu/benchmarks-20061216/ Two things: 1. http://www.vmware.com/download/eula/player.html (Restrictions - Section 3.3 - "You may use the Software to ...") 2. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-07/msg00360.html