> I could argue they are unimpressive numbers for vmware and vbox. Sure, either way. I was impressed that the open-source upstarts were beating the established leader so handily.
> 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 suppose that makes sense. I never have tried anything other than zfs (RAID6) on my server. Once btrfs RAID6 is ready, I'll probably be reformatting to try that out. I have about 1.5TB on my server though, so restoring to the drives after a reformatting is a bit of a pain. > I'm not saying improving on that is impossible, but your figures seem to > already be in the right ballpark. Ok, sounds fair. _______________________________________________ vbox-users mailing list [email protected] http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users
