From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Dy4pF-0000TK-32
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:37:13 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Dy4pD-0000Sp-B0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:37:12 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dy4oT-000885-BD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:36:25 -0400
Received: from [64.233.182.206] (helo=nproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Dy4Vd-0004kv-9a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:16:57 -0400
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id n15so87966nfc
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46d6db660507280205238f01e3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:05:23 +0200
From: Christian MICHON <christian.michon@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [Qemu-devel] some benchmarks on windows hosts
Reply-To: Christian MICHON <christian.michon@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Just wanted to share some preliminary results

Aim=3D to compare on WinXP hosts qemu+kqemu 0.7.1
         with Serenity Virtual Station (svista)

Settings=3D both vm use 128M RAM + 256M HDD/COW
Guest=3D slaxpro iso=20

Benchmarks=3D boot time, untarring kernel, compile kernel
Time is measured in real time, not in vm time. :)

Results:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
boot time -> 34s (qemu)     42s (svista)
untarring -> 102s (qemu)    83s (svista)
compile  -> 230s (qemu)    247s (svista)

3 remarks out of this experiment:

1) qemu cdrom emulation is faster than svista
   (I've other testbenches showing it: bartpe for ex)

2) qemu hdd could be faster (kqemu doesn't improve this)
  (it seems the old hdd udma patches never made it inside CVS)

3) speed of calculation is faster now with qemu+kqemu
 ( I read somewhere that on Windows, only Svista was a real
  competitor to VmWare supremacy. Apparently now qemu is
  a good challenger too)

--=20
Christian