This document compares the Xen and KVM virtualization technologies. It outlines tests performed at INFN-CNAF to evaluate Xen (para-virtualized and HVM) versus KVM on benchmarks like HEP-Spec06, network performance using iperf, and disk access with bonnie++. The results show KVM providing good stability in production, with CPU performance on par with Xen HVM. Network performance was fair with e1000 but better with virtio. Disk I/O was KVM's weakest aspect, though all solutions struggled. In conclusion, Xen remains most performing but KVM shows promise as a reliable alternative requiring minimal sysadmin effort.
This document compares the Xen and KVM virtualization technologies. It outlines tests performed at INFN-CNAF to evaluate Xen (para-virtualized and HVM) versus KVM on benchmarks like HEP-Spec06, network performance using iperf, and disk access with bonnie++. The results show KVM providing good stability in production, with CPU performance on par with Xen HVM. Network performance was fair with e1000 but better with virtio. Disk I/O was KVM's weakest aspect, though all solutions struggled. In conclusion, Xen remains most performing but KVM shows promise as a reliable alternative requiring minimal sysadmin effort.
This document compares the Xen and KVM virtualization technologies. It outlines tests performed at INFN-CNAF to evaluate Xen (para-virtualized and HVM) versus KVM on benchmarks like HEP-Spec06, network performance using iperf, and disk access with bonnie++. The results show KVM providing good stability in production, with CPU performance on par with Xen HVM. Network performance was fair with e1000 but better with virtio. Disk I/O was KVM's weakest aspect, though all solutions struggled. In conclusion, Xen remains most performing but KVM shows promise as a reliable alternative requiring minimal sysadmin effort.