[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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.