## 3 Results Analysis
### Experimental Results for Time Measurements
#### 3.1.4 Summary of Time Acquisition Experiment Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l r r r r} \hline \hline
**Function** & **Platform** & **Load** & **MAD, ns** & **Max, ns** & **Median, ns** & **Min, ns** \\ \hline TSC & ESXi & CPU-bound & 2.9 & 216,009,000.0 & 15.8 & 14.3 \\ TSC & ESXi & IO/network-bound & 0.7 & 55,265.8 & 21.5 & 14.3 \\ TSC & ESXi & Idle System & 0.7 & 62,208.5 & 20.1 & 14.3 \\ TSC & HostOS & CPU-bound & 0.0 & 168,004,000.0 & 17.2 & 12.9 \\ TSC & HostOS & IO/network-bound & 0.0 & 51,820.0 & 17.2 & 12.9 \\ TSC & HostOS & Idle System & 0.0 & 51,732.5 & 17.2 & 15.8 \\ TSC & QEMU & CPU-bound & 0.7 & 116,009,000.0 & 15.8 & 14.3 \\ TSC & QEMU & IO/network-bound & 0.7 & 73,509.8 & 15.8 & 14.3 \\ TSC & QEMU & Idle System & 0.7 & 818,343.0 & 21.5 & 14.3 \\ TSC & VBox & CPU-bound & 12.9 & 507,099,000.0 & 2033.0 & 0.7 \\ TSC & VBox & IO/network-bound & 57.6 & 13,733,500.0 & 2070.0 & 1.1 \\ TSC & VBox & Idle System & 10.9 & 2,744,610.0 & 2053.9 & 1.1 \\ TSC & Xen & CPU-bound & 2.9 & 200,008,000.0 & 20.0 & 14.3 \\ TSC & Xen & IO/network-bound & 0.7 & 4,046,770.0 & 17.2 & 14.3 \\ TSC & Xen & Idle System & 0.0 & 27,250.5 & 18.6 & 14.3 \\ System Call & ESXi & CPU-bound & 1.0 & 212,006,000.0 & 34.0 & 25.0 \\ System Call & ESXi & IO/network-bound & 1.0 & 28,608.0 & 34.0 & 25.0 \\ System Call & ESXi & Idle System & 1.0 & 56,966.0 & 34.0 & 25.0 \\ System Call & HostOS & CPU-bound & 0.5 & 108,005,000.0 & 26.0 & 24.0 \\ System Call & HostOS & IO/network-bound & 0.0 & 112,208.0 & 26.0 & 24.0 \\ System Call & HostOS & Idle System & 1.5 & 55,249.0 & 27.0 & 24.0 \\ System Call & QEMU & CPU-bound & 1.0 & 108,022,000.0 & 64.0 & 51.0 \\ System Call & QEMU & IO/network-bound & 3.5 & 167,598.0 & 69.0 & 52.0 \\ System Call & QEMU & Idle System & 1.0 & 69,456.0 & 57.0 & 51.0 \\ System Call & VBox & CPU-bound & 14.5 & 464,957,000.0 & 2060.0 & 1.0 \\ System Call & VBox & IO/network-bound & 57.5 & 12,064,200.0 & 2104.0 & 1.0 \\ System Call & VBox & Idle System & 13.0 & 826,773.0 & 2042.0 & 2.0 \\ System Call & Xen & CPU-bound & 1.5 & 296,001,000.0 & 116.0 & 80.0 \\ System Call & Xen & IO/network-bound & 0.5 & 885,662.0 & 113.0 & 78.0 \\ System Call & Xen & Idle System & 3.5 & 133,775.0 & 119.0 & 54.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Results for all experiments with timing functions. to ESXi has an effect on median values, while switching from Virtual Box to any other platform has effects on median, MAD, min and max. Under CPU-bound or IO/network-bound load, switching from Virtual Box to any other platforms significantly affects all statistical parameters of the datasets: median, MAD, min, and max. Switching from Host to Xen affects the median, min, and max, but does not affect the statistical parameters of timers on ESXi platform. At the same time, switching from Xen to ESXi affects the median, min, and max. Based on this and previous analysis, it can be said that, firstly, there is a statistically significant difference between time cost values gathered using _System Call_ and _TSC_ timer. Secondly, in all cases, Virtual Box affects negatively and statistically significant on timer cost values. This information can be considered by choosing the virtualization environment, depending on which time parameters are the more critical for the certain application.