From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  1 03:48:59 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C96BD95
 for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>; Sat,  1 Feb 2014 03:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from alto.onthenet.com.au (alto.OntheNet.com.au [203.13.68.12])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C8B1646
 for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>; Sat,  1 Feb 2014 03:48:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from dommail.onthenet.com.au (dommail.OntheNet.com.au [203.13.70.57])
 by alto.onthenet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0234911E92;
 Sat,  1 Feb 2014 13:48:51 +1000 (EST)
Received: from Peter-Grehans-MacBook-Pro-2.local ([64.245.0.210])
 by dommail.onthenet.com.au (MOS 4.2.4-GA)
 with ESMTP id BRN98660 (AUTH peterg@ptree32.com.au);
 Sat, 1 Feb 2014 13:48:50 +1000
Message-ID: <52EC6EA0.3000200@freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 19:48:48 -0800
From: Peter Grehan <grehan@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it>
Subject: Re: bhyve - ESXi comparison part 2
References: <CADfWLekdn3Qz=wC2XkdP8ugd44P5scz-3EXamc5rs9psHfcohQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADfWLekdn3Qz=wC2XkdP8ugd44P5scz-3EXamc5rs9psHfcohQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <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."
 <freebsd-virtualization.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-virtualization>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 03:48:59 -0000

Hi Andrea,

 > Here comes the part 2 of our bhyve - ESXi comparison.

  Excellent work :)

  My take is that there is more general hypervisor overhead with bhyve. 
Given that both user and system times from the benchmark are almost 
uniformally larger for bhyve in all tests points to this. There has been 
work in CURRENT to allow the host to have a much lower clock, which 
could reduce hopefully a large piece of that overhead.

  The 20 x single CPU benchmark is really an ESXi vs FreeBSD filesystem 
test - the user/system times show the same penalty as in the first 
benchmark.

  The final benchmark points to how effective the ESXi scheduler is 
under heavy load and with multiprocessor guests. I suspect it goes to 
great lengths to avoid the 'lockholder preemption problem' - this is 
pointed to by the fact that the -P option with bhvye allows it to now 
complete the test, along with the large amount of time accounted as 
system time.

later,

Peter.