From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Feb  2 03:19:19 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 2B6CC977;
 Sun,  2 Feb 2014 03:19:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22d.google.com (mail-pb0-x22d.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F048A1695;
 Sun,  2 Feb 2014 03:19:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id un15so5830063pbc.18
 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:19:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=QBPZdE21ietviO6S3svJIDH3qt0CBey5q+qS5943vPo=;
 b=EMkoY/Gs7SdeWGgHJegD4xT+UnI7SY0D2jr8h9r5hr4uzCf5A74vXsoZnZzejVZzRs
 ROXy+YEDWYuPw7yHXA3+EkgHN8Qgl/9Whbex2OAzFGBhofu4lKJIBPyaulvNwsjGSLB1
 Ss9ikmNztMSqzH5P/ko62aYRggDdeaPwGv4BwocGV7JwD2ue5ZxaBkDc6VnTTYYtwb08
 5wlbyYIRNhmuMyVTa00d/euLQEEUYSdpbKUXhi5jkqYYFLNWP6nNAFSgnw6TXDT4/Rjh
 bBlABKmJdBbgl+KXFBZCW2xzNR3Uru5IxPCWTQcBS3RqAWPeNgP8DBIMg9PSXOT5P0sc
 zxUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.102.39 with SMTP id fl7mr29246139pab.43.1391311158501;
 Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.155.38 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 19:19:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52EDB899.9060703@freebsd.org>
References: <CAGBxaXnOrL2SObPJemxzy+_+hr0fePoCKFrHG3Cr-R5t=+uNHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52EDB899.9060703@freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 22:19:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGBxaXmmd-=q6vdaJO0CzQvcAu+CCUsCyK+QjrMVqAeXrVFeWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: some interesting observations on the relative performance of kvm
 vs. bhyve
From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>
To: Peter Grehan <grehan@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17
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: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 03:19:19 -0000

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Peter Grehan <grehan@freebsd.org> wrote:

> > I have 1 host that dual boots FreeBSD and Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS and bhtyve
>
>> seems to be atleast 3 or 4 times faster with disk I/O then kvm using the
>> most stripped down command lines I can come up with.
>>
>
>  I'm guessing that the default cache mode for qemu in that release is
> "none". You may want to switch it to "writeback", which is what bhyve does
> by default (it can be changed with AHCI, see bhyve(8)).
>

Is this also true of emulators/qemu (without kqemu)?

-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org