What overhead should BHyVe incur vs. guest directly on bare metal, for memory mapped and non-memory-mapped IO to block device within the guest?

Just to get your rough approximation. OpenBSD guest. E5 Xeon CPU. SSD:s with 4 or 16KB physical sector size. In the virtualized case, the guest accesses the physical storage via a virtio block device, and the host keeps the image within a ZFS (so it gets ZFS' checksumming) and

Re: Is the BHyVe guest as suitable for high-performance disk IO as the host?

on the host's SSD-based ZFS, mounting the host ZFS filesystem with noatime)? Kind regards, Tinker On 2015-05-10 04:03, Neel Natu wrote: Hi Tinker, On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Tinker ti...@openmailbox.org wrote: Hi! For an environment with very heavy parallell IO, should the performance

Re: Can a host OS user process create a zillion BHyVe VM:s and microcontrol them?

Hi Peter, Thank you for your response! Looking at Capsicum, I think it has an even lower safety profile than NaCl - my usecase might just run any beastly binary code, so the sandbox wall needs to be the toughest you got, so using BHyVe here makes sense. Also there's a generality problem -