> > I compare SHA1 with XBZRLE. I use XBZRLE in two ways: > > 1. Begins to buffer pages from iteration 1; 2. As current > > implementation, begins to buffer pages from iteration 2. > > > > I post the results of three workloads: cpu2006.zeusmp, cpu2006.mcf, > > memcached. > > I set the cache size as 256MB for zeusmp & mcf (they run in VM with > > 1GB ram), and set the cache size as 1GB for memcached (it run in VM > > with 6GB ram, and memcached takes 4GB as cache). > > > > As you can read from the data below, beginning to buffer pages from > > iteration 1 is better than the current implementation(from iteration > > 2), because the total migration time is shorter. > > > > SHA1 is better than the XBZRLE with the cache size I choose, because > > it leads to shorter migration time, and consumes far less memory > > overhead (<1/200 of the total VM memory). > > > > Hi Chunguang, > > Have you tried to use a large XBZRLE cache size which equals to the guest's > RAM size? > Is SHA1 faster in that case? > > Thanks! > Liang
Intel's future chipset will contain hardware engines which supports SHA-x and MD5, We can make use these engines to offload the overhead from CPU for SHA/MD5 calculation. Liang