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 come >> <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 VM's > 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 drive > and an external USB 2.0 300 GB drive. I actually first ran a VM off the > 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 simultaneous > 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 the > 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). The > 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 to > 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: http://www.VistaPop.com ***************************** To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation mode or view archives use the below link. http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm