-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Defend that statement with some stats, please.
The paper I am most familiar with is: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/netos/papers/2003-xensosp.pdf and then: http://www.clarkson.edu/class/cs644/xen/files/repeatedxen-usenix04.pdf which successfully reproduces the claims made in the first paper. > I've seen claims both ways but very little hard data. VMWare can do > some very clever stuff that avoids kernel trips/page faults altogether. They can't possibly avoid these things for disk/network IO, right? All of that will have to involve some emulation by the hypervisor. In the benchmarks in the paper above you will note that vmware does far worse when faced with a workload that involves lots of IO. This is due to the emulation of privileged instructions required. I do not see any way in which emulating those can possibly be as fast. Xen gets around this by getting help from the guest OS. They are likely to be much more closely matched in a system with hardware emulation. - -- Tracy R Reed Read my blog at http://ultraviolet.org Key fingerprint = D4A8 4860 535C ABF8 BA97 25A6 F4F2 1829 9615 02AD Non-GPG signed mail gets read only if I can find it among the spam. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGX7ZO9PIYKZYVAq0RAgfEAKCKAEzd78Ojz0BCs+DlnYTAkvvDtQCdF1Bs E4qL9AnA3rBsnjiiDlSW3CQ= =KnEm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
