3 ms·

Do you have a citation for that? I did a dry run of a presentation for an engineer and her first question was "exactly how much fewer resources"? Would love to

• VLM 12y ago
  http://www.altechnative.net/2012/08/04/virtual-performance-part-1-vmware/ http://www.altechnative.net/2012/08/04/virtual-performance-p... http://serverfault.com/questions/261974/how-much-overhead-does-x86-x64-virtualization-have http://serverfault.com/questions/261974/how-much-overhead-do... These are good examples of there is no such thing as "the" virtualization and even front runners have a near 10:1 ratio of performance. Its like talking about "the" sorting algorithm. Its especially tough since there is no "the" benchmark. So if you're running a compile farm two years ago, the first article is quite relevant, otherwise maybe not. I've done a lot personally and professionally with virtualization and as a gut reaction you can usually justify and afford better specs because not all images will max out CPU at the same time, etc etc so in terms of production "stuff" done per hardware dollar you get a little more done with visualization assuming a sensible architecture. Then again you blow more money and labor and labor is money, on software for virtualization. Then again management and backup is usually simpler with virtualization, except when it isn't like when vmware and the NAS kills your mysql instances on an image when you run a backup and it starves the kernel for 60+ seconds of IO whoops. On average it ends up being about the same performance as non virtualized for a given amount of $$$$ but its much more flexible and responsive to change, which sometimes is worth it.