i'm using kvm 0.13, with vhost=on, i can acheive 950mbit/s on a gibabit nic.
And for with using virtio disks and cache=none on raw disk (on an san array), i can acheive 20000 iops (with cpu burning
Too bad it would be "illegal" to include any Vmware results. Oh well...
I wouldn't mind seeing some Xen comparisons though.
Great article anyhow
Hello! I'm curious how things changed now that Oracle took over the VirtualBox project. Can you guys do a re-make of this benchmark? Thanks!
Would someone perform a similar test for QEMU, VirtualBox, VMware Player for Windows 7 on Linux? Yes, initially thinking, the performance of those should be somewhat similar to the one in your existing tests... However, I find that this is not the case for running Windows (I perform some CPU intensive calculations and VirtualBox is outperforming QEMU with KVM by 10-15%), somehow. This is, of course, just a hypothesis. I suppose that it may be due to VirtualBox paying more attention to virtualizing Windows than QEMU.
Anything graphical left KVM behind: Application launch, browsing, etc.
Anything computation intensive (E.g. compilation) favored KVM.
More-ever, KVM seems to be far more resistant to running a large number of guests on the same host.
Last edited by gilboa; 11-29-2013 at 08:24 AM.
DEV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 5x320GB, GTX470, F19/x86_64, Dell U2711.
SRV: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 4x2TB, 9800GTX, F19/x86-64, Dell U2412.
VCR: Gigabyte GA-M61PME-S2P, A64/5000X2, 2GB, 1x320GB, 8600GT, F19/x86-64.
LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F19/x86_64.