On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Digimer <li...@alteeve.com> wrote:
> On 10-11-09 12:54 PM, j...@destar.net wrote:
>> Digimer,
>>
>> I would think the latest xen vs the latest kvm would be best. Fully
>> virtualized vs Para-virtualized, is that possible with kvm? I don't
>> believe your specs are too low end, they actually match pretty close
>> to what I have and I don't think the OS matters that much as long as
>> they are identical setups.
>>
>> Thanks for offering to do the comparison, I am very interested in your
>> results.
>>
>> Jon
>
> I will look into whether fully virtualized is an option for KVM. If not,
> I probably won't worry as all "modern" operating systems support
> paravirtualized setups.

It is the other way around. KVM only runs on vt/svm hardware, so what
we don't have, is a paravirtualization offering (apart from the
drivers, clock, etc)

>
> I've got no way of knowing how to run tests on non-linux VMs. If anyone
> can give advice on benchmarking non-Linux OS', I'd be grateful and will
> give it a go.
>
> Can you (or anyone) suggests tests to run beyond bonnie++ and a kernel
> compile that would be "real-world" and useful benchmarks? I think one
> test that will help would be to run tests concurrently on two VMs to see
> if there is a difference in how Xen or KVM handle very random disk I/O.
>
> PS - I will likely need a week or so to get these tests done.
>
> --
> Digimer
> E-Mail: digi...@alteeve.com
> AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com
> Node Assassin:  http://nodeassassin.org
> --
> xen mailing list
> xen@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen
>



-- 
Sent from my Atari.
--
xen mailing list
xen@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen

Reply via email to