From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gordan Bobic Subject: Re: Xen 4.2.2 / KVM / VirtualBox benchmark on Haswell Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:54:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <51DC2BE3.7000009@xen.org> 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> 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 Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 09 Jul 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_virtualization > > 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 Relative figures at least in terms of ordering are similar to what I found last time I did a similar test: http://www.altechnative.net/2012/08/04/virtual-performance-part-1-vmware/ My test was harsher, though, because it exposed more of the context switching and inter-core (and worse, inter-die since I tested on a C2Q) migration overheads. The process migration overheads are _expensive_ - I found that on bare metal pining CPU/RAM intensive processes to cores made a ~20% difference to overall throughput on a C2Q class CPU (no shared caches between the two dies made it worse). I expect 4.3.x will be a substantial improvement with NUMA awareness improvements to the scheduler (looking forward to trying it this weekend). Shame phoronix didn't test PV performance, in my tests that made a huge difference and put Xen firmly ahead of the competition. Gordan