You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aurora.apache.org by Mark Chu-Carroll <mc...@apache.org> on 2014/02/04 17:19:37 UTC
Vagrant provider statistics
I've been experimenting with using the VMWare provider for Vagrant, and
I've gathered some stats on relative performance.
General comments:
- VMware consistently performs *slightly* better, but provisioning is
slower.
- VMware appears to be more resilient in the face of configuration
errors. For example, if you assign the same IP address to two virtual
machines, VirtualBox will sometimes hang with a lost lock, and require the
machine to be rebooted. VMware appears to have no trouble with this issue.
- Overall, it's probably not worth the $200 it takes to purchase the
necessary licenses to use VMware. The different just isn't big enough. Both
work well.
Statistics: Using the current 2-slave tests. Machine is mostly idle.
Memory use was indistinguishable between the two alternatives. Timings
were gathered from the command-line, using "time", with real time reported.
CPU percentage was gathered with "top -c a", run for five minutes in an
idle state, with the 6 VM processes averaged.
VMWare:
- Vagrant up, with no prebuilt vms: 13m 54s
- Vagrant halt: 0m30.557s
- Vagrant up, with prebuilt vms: 2m34.104s
- Vagrant reload: 3m10.957s
- Test run: 2m57.714s
- Machine load percentage idle: 1.0-2.9, ave 2.0
VirtualBox:
- Vagrant up, with no prebuilt vms: 10m 22s
- Vagrant halt: 0m28.255s
- Vagrant up, with prebuilt vms: 2m44.747s
- Vagrant reload: 3m12.084s
- Test run: 3m9.324s
- Machine load percentage idle: 1.9-3.7, ave 2.6