This is kinda strange comparison... 1. *testing* (not production, not full, not ever stabilized/optimized) branch of OpenVZ based on 2.6.22 kernel was selected for benchmarking, which is obviously bad idea. This branch was used purely for mainstream integration... I wonder why author selected it?
2. compilation is measured unparalleled, i.e. without -j option, so hardware is not fully utilized. It is much more interesting to measure parallelized compilation on which VM solutions (including Xen) behave much worse. For example, on 2x Quad Core 3.0Ghz, 16Gb RAM system 8vCPU container does compilation on 78% faster then 8vCPU VM, i.e. almost twice. 3. Why paper doesn't present variation of the results (RMS)? It's simply wrong to compare any 2 values when you don't know RMS... 4. Disk performance varies very much across the disk surface (up to 2! times at the beginning and at the end of the partition). This is not taken into account AFAICS and obviously may result in any values measured... Kirill On 1/19/09 10:49 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > According to > http://www.scribd.com/doc/4916478/comparison-of-open-source-virtualization-tec > hnology > openvz has good network performance, but bad disk access performance. Has > anything changed in the 4 months since that was posted? > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
