From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Bligh Subject: Re: Xen 4.2.2 / KVM / VirtualBox benchmark on Haswell Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:52:33 +0100 Message-ID: <3F115C27B7E708F58FC3F38D@nimrod.local> References: <51DC2BE3.7000009@xen.org> Reply-To: Alex Bligh Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51DC2BE3.7000009@xen.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: lars.kurth@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: Alex Bligh List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --On 9 July 2013 16:27:31 +0100 Lars Kurth wrote: > Not sure whether anyone has seen this: > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_haswell_virtuali > zation > > Some of the comments are interesting, but not really as negative as they > used to be. In any case, it may make sense to have a quick look Last time I looked at the Phoronix benchmarks, they were using the default disk caching with Xen and Qemu, and these were not identical. From memory KVM was using writethrough and Xen was using no caching. This one says "Xen and KVM virtualization were setup through virt-manager". I don't know whether that evens things out, as I don't use it. -- Alex Bligh