Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 15.10: KVM vs. Xen vs. VirtualBox Virtualization Performance

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Post
    well you got two things right there. Hyper-V and Windows both suck on server platforms. I havent tried out Linux on Hyper-V lately but i did hear about microsoft was contributing code to linux kernel for better supporting GNU/linux on hyper-v/azure.
    I had chance to deal with hyper-v and I can admit no other VM software killed me so many VMs like hyper-v did. MS support was not able to resolve issue, wasting ~1.5 years or so for nothing. Azure is also fancy thing, worth of its own epic tales .

    But yeah, they have contributed code for hyper-v drivers. Yes, sometimes hell can freeze over and Microsoft can commit to Linux, on GPL terms. And while they only did it after GPL violation pressure and only because it makes their hyper-v more competitive, its still some very unusual and unexpected show, almost like seeing alive dinosaur on the street.

    Comment


    • #32
      According to the VirtualBox manual it says

      "You should not, however, configure virtual machines to use more CPU cores than you have available physically (real cores, no hyperthreads)".

      In your tests you wrote

      "all 20 CPU threads (ten core CPU + HT) were made available to the virtual machine under test."

      Maybe setting the number of cores in VirtualBox to the number of hyper-threads is having an adverse effect on VirtualBox?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Slartifartblast View Post
        Ha, laughable. See you in court VMware as that EULA clause doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
        I wanted to know: http://law.stackexchange.com/questio...actually-valid

        Comment

        Working...
        X