[windows2000] Re: OT: Virtual PC

  • From: "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:33:03 +0100

windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <> scribbled on Wednesday, November 16,
2005 5:17 PM:

> Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> Yeah, I know, I expected that too, but not to that degree. The Evo is
>> after all considered pretty fast still IMHO.
> laptops have much slower I/O than desktop machines.  7200 RPM drives
> narrows that gap, but I have no doubt if you'd run some disk I/O
> benchmarks, you would see the desktop come out far ahead.

Sadly, but true. 8-(

> Being a VM addict, I've given up on laptops for any serious day to day
> use and moved on to dual proc desktops.

I think I'll have too. But still, being able to run VPC on the laptop
would be so practical...

>> Oh well, win some loose some... I moved all virtual machines to my
>> stationary, and after christmas I'll ask my boss for a new stationary
>> with at least 2GB RAM, maybe an Amd64 x2 (3500-4200 or so) running of
>> a mobo with nforce4 chips, and two really big harddrives (200GB each
>> or so) and raid0 them. Hopefully this'll be enough for some years to
>> <crossing fingers>.
>> Maybe you guys on this list could say whether the above hardware
>> should be ok for running VMs?
> I run a dual Xeon 3.0 (400 FSB) with 2 GB RAM, dedicated 250 GB SATA
> drive for VM's as my desktop at home, and can run 8-10 simultaneous
> without bogging things down too much.  At work, I run a dual Xeon 3.4
> (800 FSB), 2 GB RAM, VM's between the internal 73 GB 10K RPM SATA
> and an external USB 2.0 300 GB drive.  I actually first ran a VM off
> USB drive as a joke (err...geek humor), to see just how slow it would
> be.  :)  But honestly, it's just as fast as the 10K RPM internal SATA
> drive (i.e. hauls ass), though I haven't run more than two
> VM's off the external drive.

Sounds good, although I'll have a hard time convincing my boss to pay
for a dual-xeon...

> On both my dual Xeon boxes, the first limitation is RAM.  Before I
> dedicated a second drive to VM's on my desktop at home, disk I/O was
> first bottleneck (in that the whole system came to a crawl when VM's
> starting hitting the disks hard, like when starting up a VM team).
> 3.4 800 FSB is dramatically faster than the 3.0 400 FSB, FWIW.

So RAM and dedicated HD-space then.

With 2GB of total RAM available, how much do you give each virtual
machine? I've seen a significant performance increase on the VMs if I
give them 384MB, or better yet a full 512MB, but then the host is rather
"punished". The VMs run either WinXP SP2 or Win2k3 SP1.

> glancing back up at the subject, I see VPC.  Note, I have VPC, but my
> experience is 95% VMware (Workstation and GSX) as it's always proved
> be vastly superior.

I ran a VMWare demo a while back, and saw that it was performing quite a
lot better, but then our university has this deal with Microsoft,
meaning I can get VPC for next to nothing. Money speaks, you know. 8-)

New Site from The Kenzig Group!
Windows Vista Links, list options 
and info are available at:
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.


Other related posts: