This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] Time for hybrid virtualization?

To: Kayvan Sylvan <kayvan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] Time for hybrid virtualization?
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:31:56 -0700
Cc: xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:32:10 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <DF0031A8C0149E41802BAFD18D6C4B701294E6370B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: OSLO R&D
References: <1200528127.6773.88.camel@lappy><1200592688.7657.72.camel@bling> <20080118062441.GA2564@saphi> <1200699825.7133.32.camel@lappy> <51CFAB8CB6883745AE7B93B3E084EBE201670748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1200994146.4795b762d3648@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1201025874.6751.44.camel@lappy> <1201179494.47988b665cbbd@xxxxxxxxxxx> <DF0031A8C0149E41802BAFD18D6C4B701294E636F1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1201207442.6826.49.camel@lappy> <DF0031A8C0149E41802BAFD18D6C4B701294E6370B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 13:19 -0800, Kayvan Sylvan wrote:
> For the Montecito chip, running the RE-AIM7 compute workload, we have
> the following preliminary summary:
> Native vs. Xen performace
> ----------------------------------
> At 2-CPU, the overhead was 13%.
> At 4-CPU, the overhead was 17%
> At 8-cpu, overhead was 28%
> At 16-cpu, the overhead was 173%
> Not quite sure why the performance dropped off so radically in the 16-CPU 
> case.
> I'm trying to get equivalent numbers for x86_64 and the Montvale chip.

   Very interesting.  Are you sizing the guest memory based on vCPU
count?  This is for HVM domUs?  Do you also plan to test PV domUs?


Alex Williamson                             HP Open Source & Linux Org.

Xen-ia64-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>