1. Have you used separate small partition for benchmarking? Disk performance varies about 2x times across the plate.... 2. 596 and even 700MB/sec makes me think you measure not real disk I/O, but memory (cache). 3. iozone is not a trustable benchmark, it really sucks. 4. VMs may have wrong time flow inside the guest which may be slower then real wall clocks. So it takes sometimes "less" time for benchmark to complete and obviously performance results "faster". 5. VMs and containers are comparable on 1 rotational HDD. VM overhead becomes much more visible on fast SSD or SAN drives where performance can get as high as >1GB/sec. Thanks, Kirill On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:47 , cmcc.dylan wrote: > As we all known the performance of lxc is near to native. I do a iozone test to compare the performance of lxc, kvm and kvm+virtio. Howerver，i find kvm+virtio has the best performance。 > All test enviroment is use the same configuration as vcpu=4 and memory=2G > The results as follows > > I don't understand why it is， please give me some help to explain this result.<iozone.png><ATT00001.c>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
