On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:49 AM, howard chen <howachen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 10:40:00PM +0800, howard chen wrote: >> Yes, paravirtualization is good. If running KVM, use paravirtualized network >> and disk/block drivers for better performance. > > So does it mean generally Xen is more optimized than KVM for speed? No, no way. Xen pv paravirtualizes everything. Most of those things are pv for the need, not for any kind of perfomance tweak. It runs on machines that does not provide hardware virtualization, so paravirtualization is your only option. For solutions that uses hardware virtualization (such as KVM and Xen HV), virtualization is done by the hardware, with the help of the VMM. For things in which there are a performance/correctness impact of using PV, like the clock, we do it. If you are using a paravirtual clock, and specialized block/net drivers, you are already taking advantage of most of the speed benefits a PV solution can provide you with. -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
