[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [Xen-devel] A Performance Comparison of Hypervisors
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Anthony Liguori > Sent: 03 February 2007 16:15 > To: Nicholas Lee > Cc: Xen development list > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] A Performance Comparison of Hypervisors > > Nicholas Lee wrote: > > Obviously not a very fair comparison [1]. I can't see how this was > > done well at all. > > I wonder why you say this. I thought the benchmark was done > very well. > What we need is more benchmarking, not less. Unfortunately, VMware > makes publishing benchmarks difficult as you have to get > their approval. > > This benchmark tells us something, the question is what does it tell > us. Let's take a look at the benchmarks they choose. > SPECcpu2000 and > SPECjbb2005 are two favorite benchmarks of virtualization > vendors. They > are favorites because everyone does well under them :-) Both aren't > sensitive to PTE update or context switch latency and don't > involve IO > very much. Even QEMU wouldn't look so bad against these :-) > > I'm not familiar with Passmark, but it looks like it's mostly CPU > bound. For all of these virtualization friendly workloads, Xen does > pretty well compared to VMware. For some of the Passmark bits, Xen > actually inches out VMware. Considering we're Open Source, > they really > have no excuse to ever be slower than we are :-) > > The compile workload was, IMHO, the most serious of the benchmarks. > VMware walloped us on that one. I suspect that's a some > shadow paging > overhead and perhaps some disk IO overhead. > > The Netperf results are a tad silly. They choose Win2k3 for > the guest > OS. They installed a paravirtual network driver in their guest > (vmxnet). However, since no PV network driver is available > for Windows > for Xen 3.0.3, they used emulated IO[1]. Of course > performance is going > to suck. > > I would have rather seen the benchmarks done with a Linux guest using > the PV drivers that are in the tree. > > The only embarrassing part is that they weren't able to boot a Win2k3 > guest with SMP support. I suspect we need either more QA for > HVM or a > better statement of supported guest confirmations. I believe official support for SMP HVM guest wasn't in there until 3.0.4, so not really surprising that it doesn't work right in 3.0.3 ;-) [It was, I think, possible to make SMP HVM guests work, but it involved recompiling the BIOS code, which of course is a bit beyond what you'd expect the average reviewer to do...] -- Mats > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > [1] The PV drivers that come in XenEnterprise are, AFAIK, only for > XenEnterprise. > > > VMWare are a bit silly to release stuff like this, just lowers the > > whole game. > > > > > > [1] http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/resources/711 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |