Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Ivy Bridge Linux Virtualization Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel Ivy Bridge Linux Virtualization Performance

    Phoronix: Intel Ivy Bridge Linux Virtualization Performance

    As the latest Intel Ivy Bridge numbers to push out, here is a look at the Linux virtualization performance with the Core i7 3770K processor when comparing its raw/bare-metal performance to Linux KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization and Oracle VM VirtualBox under Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    VMware virtualization was left out of the mix this time due to licensing reasons
    What are the licensing reasons?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by steveriley View Post
      What are the licensing reasons?
      There you go: http://www.run-virtual.com/?p=123

      Comment


      • #4
        Harumph. I should have suspected this.

        But I wonder...are these clauses really enforceable? I mean, consider the following statements:

        1. "I { downloaded | purchased } Foo."
        2. "I installed Foo."
        3. "I executed Foo and looked at the configuration options."
        4. "I performed a unit of work with Foo."
        5. "I measured and reported the time it took for Foo to do a thing."

        Statement #5 is just as much an expression of free speech as statements #1..#4. How can a court hold that #1..#4 are allowed but #5 is prohibited? Can shrink-wrap "agreements" really override the Constitution?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by steveriley View Post
          Harumph. I should have suspected this.

          But I wonder...are these clauses really enforceable? I mean, consider the following statements:

          1. "I { downloaded | purchased } Foo."
          2. "I installed Foo."
          3. "I executed Foo and looked at the configuration options."
          4. "I performed a unit of work with Foo."
          5. "I measured and reported the time it took for Foo to do a thing."

          Statement #5 is just as much an expression of free speech as statements #1..#4. How can a court hold that #1..#4 are allowed but #5 is prohibited? Can shrink-wrap "agreements" really override the Constitution?
          Unless you're willing to spend $50,000 on a lawyer, it doesn't really matter.

          Comment


          • #6
            Inferior

            VMware forbidding benchmarks must be due to inferior performance when compared against the competition.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by steveriley View Post
              Harumph. I should have suspected this.

              But I wonder...are these clauses really enforceable? I mean, consider the following statements:

              1. "I { downloaded | purchased } Foo."
              2. "I installed Foo."
              3. "I executed Foo and looked at the configuration options."
              4. "I performed a unit of work with Foo."
              5. "I measured and reported the time it took for Foo to do a thing."

              Statement #5 is just as much an expression of free speech as statements #1..#4. How can a court hold that #1..#4 are allowed but #5 is prohibited? Can shrink-wrap "agreements" really override the Constitution?
              IANAL however..

              First off you do realize NDAs have been legally enforced? right? and that that EULA basically has an NDA clause to it...

              Now what may be possible is the fact that EULAs have had a mixture of results in court sometimes they're enforced, sometimes they're not, and if an EULA tells you to do anything Illegal, such as one early Microsoft EULA, it's void..

              Also... The constitution at this point is rather meaningless, it was never really followed after the first few presidents, and then FDR went and completely violated it, and then his successor Truman never had it reinstated which means that the constitution isn't actually in effect, they're just acting like it is. And of course we've had things just continue building up with stuff like the Patriot Act and the NDAA only actually legalizing what they were already doing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                IANAL however..

                First off you do realize NDAs have been legally enforced? right? and that that EULA basically has an NDA clause to it...

                Now what may be possible is the fact that EULAs have had a mixture of results in court sometimes they're enforced, sometimes they're not, and if an EULA tells you to do anything Illegal, such as one early Microsoft EULA, it's void..

                Also... The constitution at this point is rather meaningless, it was never really followed after the first few presidents, and then FDR went and completely violated it, and then his successor Truman never had it reinstated which means that the constitution isn't actually in effect, they're just acting like it is. And of course we've had things just continue building up with stuff like the Patriot Act and the NDAA only actually legalizing what they were already doing.
                John Adams was President #2 after being George Washington's VP, and helped pass the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Anyone who thinks politicians haven't been bypassing the laws of the country since it's very founding is living under a rock.

                Back on topic:
                Anything relating to legal matters has no basis in common sense or what you can write down on these forums. It just doesn't. It's whatever you can convince a judge to rule, and the better you are at pulling out obscure legal tricks the more likely you are to succeed.

                I have my strong doubts about whether this non-disclosure rule would really be upheld by the courts, but I think most lawyers would say it's a grey area that could go either way. I could certainly see it going all the way up to the Supreme Court before it's finally settled, which means anyone who wants to fight it better be prepared for a long and expensive battle. In the real world, that means no one cares enough to go against it - except for individuals/groups who are too small to be noticed, and don't worry about it since they aren't important enough to sue.

                Of course, that's just US law. In other jurisdictions, judges could come to completely different results.

                Comment

                Working...
                X