Posted
by
Bink on
on August 6 2008, 12:26 PM
with 2 comment(s)
In head to head benchmark tests of Microsoft Hyper-V compared to VMware Workstation, The Hypervisor test results indicate virtual machine (VM) performance using Hyper-V is below that of VMware Workstation.
We tested Hyper-V running on a desktop PC fitted with an Intel Core Quad Q6600 CPU running at 2.4GHz. We compared the results with the same PC running Microsoft Vista SP1 x86 and VMware Workstation 6. Our results show VMware Workstation 6 is a faster platform for both Windows and Linux applications, although Hyper-V is almost as fast as VMware Workstation for running Windows Vista.
For our first test we created simple Linux VMs using each virtualisation product, and configured them with two NICs and 128MB of RAM. We timed how long it took to install IPcop version 1.4.20, which is a popular Linux based firewall. We timed the Linux installation tool while it formatted the disk partitions and copied files to the hard disk. Thus the test was largely a test of the virtual CD-Rom and hard disk subsystems offered by the two virtualisation products.
In our tests the VMware VM completed this portion of the installation in 13.2 seconds. The Hyper-V VM required 88 seconds.
For our next text we timed how long it took to install Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 x64. We configured our VMs with 512MB of RAM and timed the main file copying part of the installation process. Hyper-V took 18 minutes and 15 seconds to complete the file copying and expansion part of the installation. In comparison, VMware Workstation required 16 minutes and 40 seconds.
Next, we tested how long was needed to install Windows Vista SP1 x86. Both virtualisation products were considerably quicker in this test, indicating that less data was being copied to the virtual hard disks. In this test, Hyper-V took 13 minutes and 56 seconds, while VMware Workstation took 13 minutes and 47 seconds.
Continue At Source
8180 Views