From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262388AbUDENbB (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:31:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262429AbUDENbA (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:31:00 -0400 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:22027 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262388AbUDENa7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:30:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:30:56 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dan Aloni Cc: Cooperative Linux Development , Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: coLinux benchmarks Message-ID: <20040405143056.A5621@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Dan Aloni , Cooperative Linux Development , Linux Kernel List References: <20040405131520.GA4395@callisto.yi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040405131520.GA4395@callisto.yi.org>; from da-x@colinux.org on Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 03:15:20PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > The VM shows better results than the host. What gives? Perhaps > it is because of the combination of the host and guest's buffer > cache? I'd like to know about more percise benchmarking methods > for VMs. How are the virtual disks for the VM implemented? If you're doing direct I/O these numbers are indeed strange. If not OTOH that's expected because even synchronous I/O in the guest is actually async which makes it a lot faster.