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 Singh<mail-lists at 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 HDD > >> > >> It'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. -- Pasi