Thanks, Ryan! It'd be interesting to see numbers for the same test on the same machine but using User-Mode Linux... :-)
Grisha On Sat, 22 May 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver