Skip to main content

Linux Virtualization: Kernel 2.6.20 and KVM performance



I guess getting the Big Blue into the game (they have always helped the OSS out , look at Eclipse) might help KVM get really ahead of others in terms of performance. Also I guess by the time of oficial release of the kernel, the tests will show a lot more but for the time being, as this author says:

Looking over the virtualization performance results, KVM was not the clear winner in all of the benchmarks. KVM had taken the lead during Gzip compression, but in the other four benchmarks it had stumbled behind Xen 3.0.3. However, both Xen with full virtualization and the Kernel-based Virtual Machine had performed in front of QEMU with the QEMU accelerator in our select benchmarks using dual Intel Xeon LV processors with Intel Virtualization Technology. The benefits of KVM are high performance, stable, no modifications of the guest operating system are necessary, and a great deal of other capabilities (e.g. using the Linux scheduler). Once the Linux 2.6.20 kernel is officially out the door we will proceed with a greater number of KVM benchmarks in various environments including looking at the hardware virtualization performance between AMD and Intel.


I am rather curious. Read the article here from Phoronix.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more