RECORD
Power Consumption of Virtualization Technologies: an Empirical Investigation
Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing · Submitted 4 Nov 2015
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim Our initial results show how, despite of the number of virtual entities running, both kinds of virtualization alternatives behave similarly in idle state and in CPU/Memory stress test.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Virtualization is growing rapidly as a result of the increasing number of alternative solutions in this area, and of the wide range of application field. Until now, hypervisor-based virtualization has been the de facto solution to perform server virtualization. Recently, container-based virtualization - an alternative to hypervisors - has gained more attention because of lightweight characteristics, attracting cloud providers that have already made use of it to deliver their services. However, a gap in the existing research on containers exists in the area of power consumption. This paper presents the results of a performance comparison in terms of power consumption of four different virtualization technologies: KVM and Xen, which are based on hypervisor virtualization, Docker and LXC which are based on container virtualization. The aim of this empirical investigation, carried out by means of a testbed, is to understand how these technologies react to particular workloads. Our initial results show how, despite of the number of virtual entities running, both kinds of virtualization alternatives behave similarly in idle state and in CPU/Memory stress test. Contrarily, the results on network performance show differences between the two technologies.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Virtualization is growing rapidly as a result of the increasing number of alternative solutions in this area, and of the wide range of application field. | background 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.01 | asserted 1.00 |
| s1 | Until now, hypervisor-based virtualization has been the de facto solution to perform server virtualization. | background 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | Recently, container-based virtualization - an alternative to hypervisors - has gained more attention because of lightweight characteristics, attracting cloud providers that have already made use of it to deliver their services. | background 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s3 | However, a gap in the existing research on containers exists in the area of power consumption. | gap 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | This paper presents the results of a performance comparison in terms of power consumption of four different virtualization technologies: KVM and Xen, which are based on hypervisor virtualization, Docker and LXC which are based on container virtualization. | contribution 1.00 | 0.86 | 0.05 | asserted 0.96 |
| s5 | The aim of this empirical investigation, carried out by means of a testbed, is to understand how these technologies react to particular workloads. | method 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.03 | asserted 0.89 |
| s6 | Our initial results show how, despite of the number of virtual entities running, both kinds of virtualization alternatives behave similarly in idle state and in CPU/Memory stress test. | result 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.42 | asserted 0.97 |
| s7 | Contrarily, the results on network performance show differences between the two technologies. | result 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.21 | asserted 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Virtualization is growing rapidly as a result of the increasing number of alternative solutions in this area, and of the wide range of application field. Until now, hypervisor-based virtualization has been the de facto solution to perform server virtualization. Recently, container-based virtualization - an alternative to hypervisors - has gained more attention because of lightweight characteristics, attracting cloud providers that have already made use of it to deliver their services. However, a gap in the existing research on containers exists in the area of power consumption. This paper presents the results of a performance comparison in terms of power consumption of four different virtualization technologies: KVM and Xen, which are based on hypervisor virtualization, Docker and LXC which are based on container virtualization. The aim of this empirical investigation, carried out by means of a testbed, is to understand how these technologies react to particular workloads. Our initial results show how, despite of the number of virtual entities running, both kinds of virtualization alternatives behave similarly in idle state and in CPU/Memory stress test. Contrarily, the results on network performance show differences between the two technologies.
Human review
How the literature uses it
1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence
Papers citing it
Cites it as background 1 paper
-
Morabito [ref] compared the power usage of traditional virtual machine hypervisors (KVM, Xen) to container based virtualization (Docker, LXC).
How does Docker affect energy consumption? Evaluating workloads in and out of Docker containers · Prior Work · 0.88
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.