Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:10:14 -0800 From: Peter Grehan <grehan@freebsd.org> To: Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it> Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BHyVe - ESXi comparison Message-ID: <52E7D666.30503@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CADfWLe=zOc2CYRXf8ZuG4uZqN%2BMBck4y1JoDcmrX--JqAgDSQw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADfWLe=zOc2CYRXf8ZuG4uZqN%2BMBck4y1JoDcmrX--JqAgDSQw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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’t really understand (but that’s something not related > to bhyve or VMWare) is how a multiprocessor machine is slower than a > singleprocessor machine in doing the compilation… any idea? Is hyper-threading enabled on your system ? If not, then with a host only 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 – 2 CPUs – 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52E7D666.30503>