>> VMware Player/Workstation: 40s >> VirtualBox: 20s >> KVM: 6s (yes, that's six seconds, not a typo) > > Those are pretty impressive numbers for vbox and kvm.
I could argue they are unimpressive numbers for vmware and vbox. >> A virtualized solution will always go slower than the >> underlying host. > > Understood. It's the order of the slowdown that concerns > me. Well, assuming kvm has zero overhead (which would be optimistic at best, but humour me for the sake of the argument), that would put vbox overhead at 3.5x over bare metal, in the best possible case imaginable. So, let's say 30MB/s vs 100MB/s. The difference on top of that is a question of fuse overhead vs. kvm overhead. Also consider that ZFS is fairly complex, which is likely to affect performance. For example, if you are using the RAID feature, that'll slow things down substantially. For example, I can get about 600-700MB/s combined from my home grown storage server raw, but with RAID6 software RAID with optimally aligned ext3, I only see about 110MB/s on linear reads. The CPU isn't bottlenecking it, either (low CPU usage and checksumming benchmarks at over 6GB/s). Some of it at least is likely down to controller switching latencies. I'm not saying improving on that is impossible, but your figures seem to already be in the right ballpark. Gordan _______________________________________________ vbox-users mailing list [email protected] http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users
