From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ea6xL-0000oT-22
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:34:47 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ea6xG-0000nA-UG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:34:45 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ea6xD-0000mp-6a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:34:40 -0500
Received: from [64.233.182.197] (helo=nproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ea6xD-0004UD-1V
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:34:39 -0500
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x29so90085nfb
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <46d6db660511092334p1dc9f779mdb435d5d87859645@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:34:35 +0100
From: Christian MICHON <christian.michon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: VMWare player
In-Reply-To: <57528.172.16.3.2.1131588878.squirrel@devsea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1129922985.6570.51.camel@aragorn>
	<slrndlk683.gq3.draga@dragas.org> <1130017578.6570.107.camel@aragorn>
	<Pine.LNX.4.63.0510222357380.20484@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
	<1130040359.21689.33.camel@aragorn>
	<57528.172.16.3.2.1131588878.squirrel@devsea.net>
Reply-To: 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

Regarding performances of vmware player vs kqemu/qemu (I'm not
being critical about the figures here, just stating what I measured)...

using a slax-live cdrom, I managed to compile linux-2.6.14 in less
than 3 minutes, when it takes more than 6 minutes with
kqemu/qemu-0.7.2, and around 20 minutes without kqemu.
The test was made using vmdk image format.

But vmware player setup file is over 25Mb compressed, when
kqemu/qemu is less than 2Mb uncompressed :)

Christian

On 11/10/05, John Wells wrote:
> Performance does seem a bit better than qemu, but I done anything to
> quantify this. I'm running on the latest version of Ubuntu.