On 10-11-09 11:49 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> AFAIK there are some issues with that benchmark not being free.
> What I'm basically looking for is a simple comparison of a few key metrics
> between common setups. For example a simple bonnie++ run on XenPV and
> KVM+virtio_blk could already give people at least some baseline numbers.
I'd be happy to run some benchmarks. I've got some identical (if humble)
machines... Would you want just a Xen vs. KVM? If so, what parameters or
setup options would provide the best apples to apples comparison?
The machines are;
- quad core athlon II x4
- 4gb ddr3
- 1x 7200rom 500GB drive
- Fedora 14, stripped (but identical) installs
If these are too low end for useful results, let me know. Otherwise,
I'll fire up Xen under Michael's 2.6.32-25-172 kernel with the stock
4.0.1 hypervisor on one machine, and can use the stock KVM/QEMU setup
Assuming all is fine, would it matter whether the VMs were F14 vs CentOS
I was thinking 3x runs each of;
- Recompile Michael's kernel
- ?? Please make suggestions
Thanks for the offer. The services which have in the past shown
significant differences (my experience) are small, with lots of connects
and io. Examples are NNTP (ak usenet news) and POP mail servers. I
suspect that DHCP and DNS have too little io to show the effect, but I
never had enough load to know. Unless web service has a lot of dynamic
content, I doubt it would have enough load to show the difference unless
someone has server image and load generator to use. I could probably dig
up a simulated load for NNTP, but I don't have an easy way to preload a
server. My days of generating test loads were when I ran ISP NNTP
servers and only had to provide test loading against the servers.
Performance aside, There is still a lot of old or small hardware that
just can't do KVM at all, and which are easier to administer with a VM
which can be moved.
"We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
used in creating them." - Einstein