Lonnie Mendez wrote:
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 23:37 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I said "I think" because I wanted to use a decent benchmark to
actually test the results. I threw in a test against VMPlayer as well. I
found that with USB tablet emulation, Qemu was approximately only half as
fast as it could operate without it. I did NOT perform these tests
without KQEMU for two reasons 1) the *concept* that USB tablet emulation
slows down Qemu can be shown either way and 2) I can't stand waiting
around for hours and hours while Qemu translates code, sorry. At this
particular time, I'm really only interested in this particular case
because I use it for production use and many non-developer users are
wanting to do the same thing. The only major difference that I found
between Qemu+KQEMU and VMPlayer was that VMPlayer is about 4x faster when
it comes to memory access. You can view my results at:
http://www.calcmaster.net/qemu/benchmarks-20061216/
Two things:
1. http://www.vmware.com/download/eula/player.html
(Restrictions - Section 3.3 - "You may use the Software to ...")
2. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-07/msg00360.html
_______________________________________________
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
I have tested and benchmarked this USB tablet emulation patch from
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-07/msg00360.html on my
website at http://www.calcmaster.net/qemu/benchmarks-20061216/ and you
can see that this patch makes a HUGE difference in performance. Is
there any way that this patch could be committed any time soon?
-Joseph
P.S. Any insight on why Qemu's memory access is so much slower than a
vmplayer? Fabrice?
_______________________________________________
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
