Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: The Start Of Some KVM Virtualization Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,422

    Default The Start Of Some KVM Virtualization Benchmarks

    Phoronix: The Start Of Some KVM Virtualization Benchmarks

    The last time we published any benchmarks using KVM (the Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization was last year when looking at the performance with the Linux 2.6.31 kernel and before that when looking at the Intel Core i7 virtualization performance. However, a new set of Linux virtualization benchmarks are being worked on...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODM3NA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    160

    Default

    have you got an agreement with vmware? Don't they still dissalow all (published) benchmarking in their EULA?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    872

    Default

    What about xen-4.0-testing + jeremy's kernel with blktap2?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Perth, Scotland
    Posts
    433

    Default

    I'm not a very serious KVM user but my one complaint about it is that compiling is very slow, much more by comparison than anything else. I believe this is a known problem. It has been suggested that setting the virtio storage device to rotational mode on the guest and using the deadline scheduler on the host can help a little but Windows XP doesn't support virtio storage. I think it only gives you a small gain anyway.

  5. #5

    Default

    It would be useful to know exactly how you configured the storage and networking of the VM, as these can obviously have a significant impact on performance. Especially, I believe you get the best disk performance if you use a host LVM volume as the storage for the VM. I can certainly put you in touch with some of the RH virt folks if it would help to make sure you get the optimal KVM configuration.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    52

    Default

    It would be interesting to see KVM tested with and without virtio!
    (http://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Virtio)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Make sure KSM is disabled

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    58

    Default

    When you're doing the virtualbox testing, it'd be nice to see the results both with and without hardware virt support (seeing as how qemu's equivalent kqemu seems depreciated...).

    I second (or third?) the call for virtio disk/nic testing and comparisions, and the other kernel paravirt options.
    Actually, if testing with a "bleeding edge" kernel or whatever, seeing what kind of difference the new host-side vhost net driver makes would be sweet too.

    Quote Originally Posted by lordmozilla View Post
    have you got an agreement with vmware? Don't they still dissalow all (published) benchmarking in their EULA?
    Seriously?

    I wonder if that'd even be enforceable...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vorgusa View Post
    Make sure KSM is disabled
    I second that.
    KSM can have a devastating effect on the performance.
    Beyond that, using all of host's memory for a VM is a very bad idea, you lose the disk caching on the host side and may even force the host to swap output memory.

    In short:
    Upgrade the machine to 6GB (give 4 to the guest).
    Disable KSM.
    Graphical test should performance better with -vga std or vmware.

    - Gilboa
    DEV-NG: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX680, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    DEV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 5x320GB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711 (^).
    SRV: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 4x2TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64, Dell U2412.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Besides an upgrade to 6Gb, I would also suggest to give 50% of host memory to the guest, so that we could compare the virtual systems benchmarks (using 3Gb) with the native execution with 3Gb (an important extra).

    Michael, were you considering something like this?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •