On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Digimer <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10-11-09 12:54 PM, jonr@xxxxxxxxxx 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: digimer@xxxxxxxxxxx > AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com > Node Assassin: Âhttp://nodeassassin.org > -- > xen mailing list > xen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen > -- Sent from my Atari. -- xen mailing list xen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen
