[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] VMX status report. Xen: #17270 & Xen0: #488 -- nonew issue


  • To: "Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:00:09 +0000
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:01:28 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AciNk+8gVPQ6UlY+Q3imHZ2zMFtzTQA1gPlyAC47q+AAAVK7zw==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] VMX status report. Xen: #17270 & Xen0: #488 -- nonew issue

On 26/3/08 09:36, "Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I guess you do your testing offline, but do you have a feel for how
>> fast guest installation is now compared with a few weeks ago (before
>> mmio emulation changes)? I'm thinking it's slowed down rather a lot,
>> at least on my old Pentium 4 test system. :-(
> 
> Keir, we checked guest installation with rhel4u3 today, we compared c/s
> 17284 with c/s 16720,
> The result shows latest c/s with mmio emulation changes is a little bit
> faster than before on our test system with Xeon(r) processors, about 20
> seconds faster.

That's pretty surprising! I found out that slowdown on my P4 system for
WinXP installation is about 15%, so not as bad as I thought. And I can
probably reclaim most of that performance loss.

I find it hard to explain a performance *win* though!

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.