| From: | Matthew O'Connor <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Devrim Gündüz <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, "'Joshua D(dot) Drake'" <jd(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for? |
| Date: | 2007-04-06 07:53:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4615FC8C.4070804@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>> The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in,
>> so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it.
>
> ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no
> performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there
> will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss
> about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows).
I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special
support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which
pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have. No?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takayuki Tsunakawa | 2007-04-06 08:00:47 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint V3 |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-04-06 07:40:48 | Re: Auto Partitioning |