The Xen installed image is "Standard PC". I erased the KVM installed image unfortunately, so I can't check that easily.
The KVM installed image did require the -no-acpi flag, and the Xen image does not, so that is consistent with your explanation: the Xen install is a faster, non-acpi HAL. The speed difference is quite noticeable on a core 2 1.66 On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 18:40 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Andrew Olney wrote: > > I'd almost swear that KVM is faster with an XP raw image that was > > installed by Xen, than it is with a raw image installed by KVM. > > > > > > That may well be. Perhaps the images have different HALs. > > Compare the values under My Computer | Properties | Hardware | Device > Manager | Computer. Maybe one uses the "Standard PC" HAL (faster) > and > the other the ACPI HAL (slower). You can also change HALs (required > reboot). > > > > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:10 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> Andrew Olney wrote: > >> > >>> I've been migrating from Xen to KVM for a wide variety of reasons. > >>> > >>> I've noticed, however, that XP installs much much faster with Xen > (3.03 > >>> xen-image-xen0-2.6.17-6-generic-xen0 ubuntu) than with KVM (14). > >>> > >>> > >> btw, as both Xen and kvm use qemu, Xen full virtualization images > should > >> work without change in kvm. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
