To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ad a)on decent hardware (with enough ram - 512MB is real minimum) you won't see a difference in speed in applications like office, IE, outlook or something with equal system requirements. Anyway, native is always fastest and i think vmware is slightly faster than qemu+kqemu but not much.
ad b) higher CPU and HDD usage -> shorter battery life
but it is impossible to tell how much shorter it will be, because it also depends on applications running in virtual machine
> Anyway, native is always fastest and i think vmware is
> slightly faster than qemu+kqemu but not much.
Depends. CPU/memory performance is roughly comparable, but VMware is *way* better at screen performance. See http://forums.bsdnexus.com/viewtopic.php?id=1580 for some tests I did.
Caveat: this is on FreeBSD, and uses Win4BSD (based on qemu/kqemu) and a very old version of VMware. I would think the general result holds.
> i think vmware is slightly faster than qemu+kqemu but
> not much.
VMWare is faster but most of the *perceived* performance benefit's over Qemu with the kernel accelerator module (and -kernel-kqemu) are due (in the case of Windows gusts atleast) to the guest side VGA and mouse drivers (bundled with VMWare Tools) which make the guest UI far more responsive and smooth. Qemu on the other hand opts to emulate real world hardware and your guest will use real world drivers.





Member since:
2006-11-02
Great idea, but maybe you should link to the tutorial about the "seamless" part. It's found right here:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SeamlessVirtualization
And, I've been wondering what sort of impact qemu+kqemu has on a) performance vs VMWare and native, and b) battery life
Edited 2007-03-21 17:51