Vmware vs Virtualbox vs KVM vs XEN: virtual machines performance comparison

Written by Gionatan Danti on . Posted in Virtualization

User Rating:  / 167
PoorBest 

FTP server test

For evaluate FTP performance, I installed FileZilla on each guests and then I uploaded to, and downloaded from, it the ISO image of the Ubuntu 9.10 x86_64 live CD.

Here are the results expressed in KB/s:

FTP transfer speed

All in all, I think that the all virtualizers tested are in the same league here.

It can be that CPU usage can paint a different picture?

FTP transfer CPU load

Please note that the bottom half show you CPU load during upload, while the top half during download. The results are not so homogeneous now: Xen is the least efficient hypervisor here, followed at some distance by KVM (remember that interrupt time is already included in privileged time). It's a shame, because its IRQ service time seems to be very low, but its total privileged shows that the syscall routines execute very slowly.

Speaking about KVM, we can see that it seems to be quite better that Xen, but it remain over 2X heavier than VMware and VirtualBox, which are the true leaders here. VMware's very low interrupt time is again a gift of its paravirtualized network driver, but VirtualBox is very good also: it is only in the download test that VMware is capable of pulling a bit ahead.

What about the hard disk load?

FTP transfer HD load

The first thing to note is that the download disk activity is so small thanks to the guest side caching (I run download tests after the upload ones and, while I purged the host sided cache, the guest cache was left intact).

Upload disk activity is a very different beast: we can see that VMware is the most efficient machine, Xen is the least, and VirtualBox and KVM are somewhere in the middle.

UPDATE: a recent article comparing KVM vs VirtualBox can be found here: http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/virtualization/12-kvm-vs-virtualbox-40-on-rhel-6.html

Comments   

 
#1 Nathan 2012-09-12 03:12
This is a terrible review, to install the VMware paravirtual drivers but not the KVM Windows paravirtual drivers. All results from VMware must be discarded for comparison purposes.
 
 
#2 Marcelo 2015-11-15 03:16
A quick comparison I made between VMware Workstation Player and VirtualBox, with XP as guest, shows a ridiculous I/O advantage of VB, while VMware has a big advantage on 3D graphics.
 
 
#3 Gionatan Danti 2015-11-15 09:32
Quoting Marcelo:
A quick comparison I made between VMware Workstation Player and VirtualBox, with XP as guest, shows a ridiculous I/O advantage of VB, while VMware has a big advantage on 3D graphics.


Hi Marcelo,
VBox higher I/O speed probably is an artifact of VBox not honoring write barrier (synchronized writes) by default. While this give much higher speed, storage consistency is somewhat reduced and I do not suggest to disable write barriers on production host/machines.
 

You have no rights to post comments