hardware virtualization slower than software
Hardware virtualization slower than software?
... from above:
One example given is compilation of a Linux kernel under a virtualized Linux OS. Native wall-clock time: 265 seconds. Software-buttisted virtualization: 393 seconds. Hardware-buttisted virtualization: 484 seconds. Ouch. It sounds to me like a hybrid approach may be the best answer to the virtualization problem. "
... snip ...
similar, but different posting made here not too long ago
the above has a discussion about hardware-software virtualization trade-off in 3081 vis-a-vis 3090. note that this was pre-"PR-SM" (which has since evolved into LPARS) ... where the microcode support can create virtual machines ... w-o requiring separate hypervisor monitor running (i.e. "dropping" everything into hardware was no longer a performance trade-off issue).
Eh, I think it was almost so *at the time* I remember all the magazines falling all over themselves about the new IBM PC, and going "why? what's the big deal?". Only Betsy Staples...
for other drift, the performance characterization in the article is reminisent of presentation i made at boston share meeting in aug68. three people had came out from the science center
the last week in jan68 to install cp67 at the university. during the spring and summer of 68, i rewrote significant poritions of the kernel, some cases descreasing pathlengths by factor of 10 to 100 times. past posting of parts of that presentation
which has a bare-machine (native wall clock) time of 322 sec. original virtualization elapsed time 856 sec. virtualization elapsed time (after rewrites of the spring and summer) 435 secs (virtualization processing was reduced from 534 cpu secs. to 113 cpu secs.).
25th Anniversary of the Personal Computer" 4193
Alt Folklore Computers from Newsgroups