[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Enable hash vtlb
- To: "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 02:19:03 +0800
- Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:20:03 -0700
- List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
- Thread-index: AcZaOCQZxD2/LTjiSWCJJGOwhZ+0cwAKHVcgAAJxvvAAAJT2sAAAS7CQ
- Thread-topic: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Enable hash vtlb
>Could be, but your numbers raise questions about your
>measurement methodology. Why
>is domU faster than native (with or without the patch)?
Didn't you know kernel build on DomU is faster than native?
I remember Fujitsu has post this kind of data, and I also got
this kind of data from Intel QA team.
I have suspected this data too.
After further thought, I think the main reason is
the services running on domU is less than those on native machine,
for example, all network-related services are not running on domU.
You can get this kind of data yourself. :-)
Thanks,
Anthony
>And why is domU much faster than the previous numbers
>you posted for dom0 (with or without the patch)?
>I've never seen either of these to be true.
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
