From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:52:28 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] qemu, kvm, xen In-Reply-To: <13426df10704060736h13f60a16y658fd770561444e0@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10704060736h13f60a16y658fd770561444e0@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4070f164-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 4/6/07, ron minnich wrote: > > boot: > qemu, 60 seconds > kvm, 100 seconds (yes, indeed, kvm did indeed boot more slowly than > plain old qemu) > xen, 6 seconds (it's nice) > > build a pccpuf kernel: > qemu, 100 seconds > kvm, 80 seconds > xen, 12 seconds > > So, the choice for speed is still xen. THX will remain xen-based for now. > I/O is really going to suck with KVM right now -- after all, they are using qemu for all their I/O emulation, so it makes sense that they would be as slow. The fact that boot is almost double qemu is kinda crazy (is that qemu + kqemu, or vanilla qemu?) -- I mean I know they are setting up some extra shit, but double the time is nuts. kvm will catch up as soon as better paravirtualization interfaces are integrated (particularly for I/O) -- this is why I wanted to push 9p as the KVM paravirtualized I/O interface -- its clear they need to close that gap. -eric