Re: [Xen-devel] xen vs. uml benchmarks - Matt Ayres - com.xensource.lists.xen-devel

3 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-develRe: [Xen-devel] xen vs. uml benchmarks

From	Sent On	Attachments
Peter Surda	16 Nov 2003 06:22
Matt Ayres	16 Nov 2003 11:24
Ian Pratt	16 Nov 2003 13:42

Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] xen vs. uml benchmarks
From:	Matt Ayres (mat...@tektonic.net)
Date:	11/16/2003 11:24:26 AM
List:	com.xensource.lists.xen-devel

On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 09:22, Peter Surda wrote:

Hi,

I have a question about the benchmarks published on the Xen website, mainly how UML was benchmarked. My point is that the details aren't described anywhere, and there are several tricks which dramatically improve UML performance, mainly IO-Latency and scheduling.

So, here comes: - what was the data, such as rootfs, in reality? was it a raw partition or an ubd or hostfs (or whatever)? - was the UML memory saved on tmpfs? - was swap used inside the guest, again was it raw or ubd or whatever?

I haven't personally used UML, but it's always good to keep options open. Could you provide which you perceive to have the best performance for each of these that you ask (ie, ubd or hostfs). I'd like to test this myself and if you know anything that would improve UML performance i'd like to include it.

It doesn't look like UML is anywhere near close to providing the QoS of Xen, but if the server isn't expected to overreach it's limits then perhaps that isn't a huge problem.

Anyway, Xen benchmarks look very impressive.

Bye,

Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <shur...@routehat.org>, ICQ 10236103, +436505122023