study performed at Cambridge University and replicated at Clarkson University. That study used a handful
of benchmarks and compared throughput across a number of virtualization platforms. It found that, for those
The issue for our community, however, is that it is human nature to use the "at most 8% worse"
as a data-point for Xen performance. But throughput is not the whole picture. Many Xen installations
are hosting user-facing web applications where response time is much more important than throughput.
Xen often increases the variability of response times.
One real world example:
native Linux: page response times of ( 400ms/150ms) [mean/standard deviation]
Xen VM: page response times of ( 700ms/3.5s) [mean/standard deviation]
In this scenario, we have mean response times that are almost 100% worse, and the 90th percentile is 1000% worse.
Peter Booth
On May 28, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Javier Guerra wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Peter Booth <
peter_booth@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The 8% is a dangerous over-simplification, and represents simply the results
of a particular well-designed study.
Clearly there are situations where the overhead of using Xen is much higher
than this.
but not as measured on Dom0, as i think the original question was
--
Javier
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxhttp://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
