[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Xenoppix (KNOPPIX5.1.1 + Xen3.0.4 + QEMU/KVM + HTTP-FUS

From: Fabrice Bellard
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Xenoppix (KNOPPIX5.1.1 + Xen3.0.4 + QEMU/KVM + HTTP-FUSE) is released
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:43:47 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1

Kuniyasu Suzaki wrote:

We released new Xenoppix which is consisted of KNOPPIX5.1.1, Xen3.0.4, QEMU/KVM, and HTTP-FUSE(stackable/network virtual disk). You can compare Xen(3.0.4 on Linux2.6.16) and KVM(Release 12 on Linux2.6.19) on the CD-ROM.
### Performance -PI calculation(3 Million-digits) is used to compare. http://h2np.net/pi/pi_quick_start.tar.gz
  We confirmed the performance of kvm was very close to native CPU. However the 
  was still slow.
               | sec   |
     Native CPU| 14.67 | Core2 Duo (T7200)
            kvm| 17.90 | IntelVT is effective
       kvm(off)| 225.1 | "-no-kvm" is used
    qemu(kqemu)| 24.87 | "-kernel-kqemu" isn't used
           qemu| 227.1 | "-no-kqemu" is used
      Xen(DomU)| 14.68 |
       Xen(HVM)| 15.99 | IntelVT is effective


Since your benchmark involve a mostly user task, the performance of kqemu must be very close to native CPU time. I suggest you make the following tests to improve your benchmarking of qemu/kqemu:

1) Do not use the clock of the virtualized OS to make the measure. QEMU may have bugs which make it very inaccurate.

2) For best performances with kqemu, it is better to use Linux 2.4 as guest OS (I know this is far from acceptable, but it can help some people to get better performance !).



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]