On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:19:26PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just FYI...
thanks for checking this for us ... Roderick: I asked Ryan to do those tests for us to check the impact of linux vserver on typical applications ... > Ran unixbench-4.1.0 on a test machine four times with the following kernel > configurations; the value for each run is the final score output by unixbench. > > Complete unixbench output can be downloaded here: > http://www.sculpturedlife.com/vserver/unixbench.tar.bz2 > > 2.6.6 > vanilla1: 495.1 > vanilla2: 494.7 > vanilla3: 493.6 > vanilla4: 494.1 average = 494.3 +/- 0.6 > 2.6.6-vs1.9.1 in host > host1: 496.7 > host2: 494.1 > host3: 496.1 > host4: 497.3 average = 496 +/- 1.5 > 2.6.6-vs1.9.1 in vserver > vserver1: 452.0 (ignored) > vserver2: 484.5 > vserver3: 488.2 > vserver4: 487.9 average = 486.8 +/- 2 so the overhead of linux vserver on the host is not measurable (it seems that it is slightly faster than a vanilla kernel, but within the expected and measured noise) and the overhead inside a vserver is roughly 2% which leaves us with 98% of the native performance ... best, Herbert > Test machine: > Dual Xeon 2.8GHz > Fedora Core 2 > binutils-2.15.90.0.3 > gcc-3.3.3 > util-vserver-0.29-214 > > Cheers, > Ryan > > > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
