From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 28 17:30:28 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CA74F0 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com (mail-pb0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD3731431 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:30:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rq2so634663pbb.9 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:30:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kPV9WQ+9F1xYTmvBGD9ndbEmI0eod4q9mHjbWuUoqWM=; b=YzQ3gBxJAkReIPq782Ua060g2SbMZnKYcemoOJinyA7rsVEbTf4fKzsAcWJOeICGQW iW3OUskcEc/jSvQ+xBcwE+nRDCPNuI9c7U/f9T6I44aqi/c0wR4kP5wdw/1LjGhbdZcL OmqQUIrnTrYNWDX0hM8ZVKJN9kJ5vWwyWIYh9qx19+MuuiTfiovs1yG9YhJjeVdz6aCz K0u2nlNOrbz2mXjajaLVeFWFTFDNruCRqpwUFm7bfdIxQdMCgefs0RE/+dfxPrY/3dHN TPN1Xt/v2UuLAnU6aSZO/OBj94W9YKEy6FPqoPGzVhdaAs8D1VnTnsAUT9g1Z72zPKSp 7MFA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmr21XqGzRLIs2TWljVZ22FGAlQq3VAo7ep6kvsv9TZRGfBkDMYDFPSrZVowTc7J65YNFYz MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.234.230 with SMTP id uh6mr2711059pbc.161.1390930227058; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:30:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.176.5 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:30:26 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [2001:470:28:12b::3] In-Reply-To: <52E7D666.30503@freebsd.org> References: <52E7D666.30503@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:30:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BHyVe - ESXi comparison From: Andrea Brancatelli To: Peter Grehan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:30:28 -0000 Hello Peter, unfortunately we've been a bit sloppy in tracking the time output because initially it was just an internal test, thus we don't have the details. We're setting up a new round of tests we'll run tomorrow and we'll track user/system/real in a more precise way; I will also publish a graph with the three stacked piles. Hyperthreading should hopefully be enable on the host, frankly I didn't check it out, I will tomorrow. KVM and QEMU are a bit out of our scope, so we didn't have plans for that. If I can fine some spare time we'll try. On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Peter Grehan wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > > We did a very rough comparison betweend BHyVe and VMWare ESXi. Maybe >> you want to give it a read and let me know if I did write a bunch of >> sh!t :-) >> > > Looks good to me :) Thanks for running the tests. > > Would you be able to list the command options you used with bhyve when > running these tests ? > > What I couldn=E2=80=99t really understand (but that=E2=80=99s something = not related >> to bhyve or VMWare) is how a multiprocessor machine is slower than a >> singleprocessor machine in doing the compilation=E2=80=A6 any idea? >> > > Is hyper-threading enabled on your system ? If not, then with a host onl= y > having 2 CPUs and a 2 vCPU guest, there isn't as much opportunity to > overlap host i/o threads with vCPU threads. > > It would be interesting to see your "time" results when running bhyve to > show %user/%system etc - that may give an indication of how much time is > spent on 'overhead' CPU usage as opposed to pure vCPU usage. > > > 20 VM =E2=80=93 2 CPUs =E2=80=93 2GB RAM > > Interesting result to say the least :) > > I'll try and repro this and see if it's something simple. At first guess > I'd say it's the classic 'lock-holder-preemption' issue that the ESXi > scheduler has a lot of smarts to avoid. > > Another interesting test would be Qemu/KVM VMs on Linux to see if it has > the same issue. > > later, > > Peter. > --=20 *Andrea BrancatelliSchema 31 S.r.l. - Socio UnicoResponsabile ITROMA - FIRENZE - PALERMO ITALYTel: +39. 06.98.358.472* *Cell: +39 331.2488468Fax: +39. 055.71.880.466Societ=C3=A0 del Gruppo SC31 ITALIA*