Re:VMware vs. bhyve Performance Comparison
by openforce on Friday August 21, 2015 @12:25PM
(#10098545)
At VMWare, I was working on ESX performance for a while, and I can say that performance is taken very seriously. Major features have been pushed back to the drawing board when the performance was not up to the mark. The handle on performance of ESX is tight.
Also, If I may say so, ESXi is one of the most well written pieces of system software to date.
Re:VMware vs. bhyve Performance Comparison
by nullrouted on Saturday August 22, 2015 @07:30PM
(#10104198)
As a former VMware employee I would agree with your sentiment, excellent hypervisor.
> Arguably where VMWare shines is management tools and so on, not exactly performance - this is kind of widely known, anecdotally at least and probably the number one reason they forbid benchmarks in the EULA.
Or maybe because people would publish "benchmarks" like this where they are comparing storage performance of a third party NFS solution (FreeNAS) running as a VMware VM and compare that to a solution using local disks and claim that is a useful comparison…
Big corps with big money don't care that much about performance
That's just not true. In fact, they often care more than small companies because of how expensive it is to get, say, 10% more performance out of a 4- or 5-Nines production environment.
Arguably where VMWare shines is management tools and so on, not exactly performance - this is kind of widely known, anecdotally at least and probably the number one reason they forbid benchmarks in the EULA. They know they're going to suck. :-)
Big corps with big money don't care that much about performance, they're more interested in ease of use, interoperability, SLAs, support, integration with other enterprise crap etc.