On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> Interesting. Do you have some notes about your KVM setup? I want to
>> try it as well, as the ubuntu guys seem to prefer it over virtualbox:
I'm using kvm directly (not libvirt / vi
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo,
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
> wrote:
>>
>> For comparision, I'm using kvm to virtualize our sage notebook server.
>> Here's the timings for your scripts:
>>
>> A) the real hardware
>>
>> 0.196608066559
Hi Gonzalo,
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
wrote:
>
> For comparision, I'm using kvm to virtualize our sage notebook server.
> Here's the timings for your scripts:
>
> A) the real hardware
>
> 0.196608066559
> 1
>
> 0.191864967346
> -50
>
> B) the kvm instance
>
> 0.219820
For comparision, I'm using kvm to virtualize our sage notebook server.
Here's the timings for your scripts:
A) the real hardware
0.196608066559
1
0.191864967346
-50
B) the kvm instance
0.219820976257 (11.8% slowdown)
1
0.213951826096 (11.5% slowdown)
-50
Gonzalo
On Fri, Oct 23, 200
I assume the VirtualBox image is 32-bit and your native OS is 64-bit? So it
isn't that surprising that computations with bigger numbers are somewhat
slower (13x is a bit much still, me thinks)
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_o
