Skip to main content

XenSource's benchmark more accurate than VMware's?



Chris Wolf published some Virtual Iron's benchmark results and commented that many of the people believe XenSource's benchmark to be more accurate. How did they come to the conclusion, I don't know.

So overall the Windows Server 2003 VM was able to perform at or below a 3% performance degradation. The Virtual Iron tests followed the same benchmark pattern used by VMware. If you would like to see the VMware results and also get more detail on what each individual benchmark is testing, take a look at VMware’s document “A Performance Comparison of Hypervisors.” Keep in mind that the Xen performance numbers in the VMware paper are under significant debate, with most of us (myself included) seeing Simon Crosby’s Xen benchmark numbers as being more accurate.


Read more...
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