On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 10/19/2010 09:41 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:58:15PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 10/16/2010 08:11 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Bart Swedrowski wrote:
Hi Karanbir,
On 14 October 2010 19:59, Karanbir Singhmail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 10/14/2010 07:48 AM, Tom Bishop wrote: > I think xen is still on top in terms of performance and features....now
that is indeed what it 'feels' like, but I'm quite keen on putting some numbers on that.
I have done some testing some time ago on one of the EQ machines that I got from hetzner.de. Full spec of the machine was as following:
* Intel® Core??? i7-920 * 8 GB DDR3 RAM * 2 x 750 GB SATA-II HDDIt's nothing big but even though results are quite interesting. All tests were performed on CentOS 5.5 x86_64 with PostgreSQL 8.4 (from CentOS repos).
Note that 64bit Xen guests should be HVM, not PV, for best performance. Xen HVM guests obviously still need to have PV-on-HVM drivers installed.
32bit Xen guests can be PV.
Hm, why would HVM be faster than PV for 64 bit guests?
It's because of the x86_64 architecture, afaik.
There was some good technical explananation about it, but I can't remember the url now.
In that case I'll have to call this advice extremely bogus and you probably should refrain from passing it on. The only way I can see this being true is some weird corner case.
It's not bogus, you can go ask on xen-devel :)
-- Pasi