If someone is interested in doing a 3rd party comparison I can help with the correct methodology creation taking into account lots of obstacles such as disk non-uniform performance, not always real time ticking inside VMs and so on. It's really really hard to make an apples to apples comparison :(
Kirill On 1/19/09 11:23 PM, "Michael H. Warfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 14:49 -0500, [email protected] wrote: >> According to >> http://www.scribd.com/doc/4916478/comparison-of-open-source-virtualization-te >> chnology >> openvz has good network performance, but bad disk access performance. Has >> anything changed in the 4 months since that was posted? > > Wow... Could they possibly chosen a more inconvenient format. A > slide > show in pdf fed through flash. That was painful. Can't even download > the pdf to just page through it without signing up for an account. Man > that sucks. > > I'd like to see some independent validation of those numbers and the > methodology. Some things in there don't seem to pass the smell test > (particularly wrt disk times) and I wonder how well managed things like > file system positioning (location within a disk) and fragmentation were > managed and controlled. I would like to know if they ran each test from > a controlled partition (so the location on disk didn't vary) and rebuilt > the file system each time (to manage fragmentation). But, even the dd > from /dev/zero to /dev/null seems rather wonky to me. > > I also find it hard to believe, just from personal experience, that > Xen > would beat OpenVZ for anything. I've run Xen and I have OpenVZ in > production. I've got a couple dozen OpenVZ VM's running on a single > platform with virtually no major load average problem (400+ processes at > any one time) where VMware crushed the processor at less than a dozen > and Xen couldn't even keep up with that (no HW virtualization). > > They also show Xen outperforming VirtualBox (I would have loved to see > a VMware comparison in there as well) but that is totally contrary to my > experience both with an without HW virtualization (but I noticed they > were using HW virt for Xen and had it disabled for VirtualBox for at > least some of the tests... Hmmm...). > > I have first hand hands on experience with VMware, VirtualBox, Xen > (with and without HW vt), OpenVZ, Linux-Vservers, and kvm. Their > results are too at odds with my experience. > > Mike > -- > Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | [email protected] > /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ > NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all > PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
