WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

RE: [Xen-users] Xen Performance

To: "'xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Xen Performance
From: Joe Armstrong <jarmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Delivery-date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:36:49 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> It shows that for some types of Disk IO, like sequential delete and
> random create Xen performs faster than native linux. A full comparison
> chart is attached as a pdf.
> The test are run first from native linux than both from Dom0 and a DomU
> with the same results.
> 
Hi Amir,

Not an authoritative answer here... but I've see similar results just running 
"hdparm" to see IO rates.
I've also seen in the past some amount of clock skew between host & guest OS so 
it could be that the (possible) clock skew is causing your benchmark to show 
higher than possible results... if your guest OS clock is even a little slow it 
will effect results especially in short-term tests.

Joe

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

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