I did some compilation (ACE TAO, and Boost C++ library) in vmware player virtualmachine environment. I find I was unable to tolerate the performance.
My machine is T410(i7 620, 6G memory and 5400 harddriver). The installed OS is Ubuntu 12.04 and then I installed vmware player, where the hosted OS is XP. I allocated (3G,2 core for 15G) for VMware player.
For example, for Boost, the bootstrap.bat takes about 3 hours to complete in XP while it is only several seconds in ubuntu. For ACE TAO compilation, it takes 2 days in hosted XP but only less 3 hours in Ubuntu.
I checked task manger in hosted XP. CPU usage keeps about 12%, and only 300M~ memory are really used. Since both CPU and memory are not bottleneck, the problem should be at Disk side.
Because it is not possible to repace new hard driver, I wonder if there is some guide for Vmware player performance tunning, especially for hard driver?
This is link from vmware site
http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&docTypeID=DT_KB_1_1&externalId=1008885
But the tools vmware-vdiskmanager in the link does not exist in my side.. How to check snapshot of my machine. Seems there is no snapshot generated in my machine.
Related
Curious if anyone out there is doing Android Studio development on a dual Xeon machine.
I would like to know if the additional CPU gave a dramatic or visible (50% or more) boost in build performance.
You probably found out, but for others wondering: Chances are - it won't.
Did some testing with two relatively quick E2650 v4 Xeons on a largish Java + Kotlin project and Xeons were considerably slower than low core count / higher clock CPU's.
Check out the benchmarks here:
https://superuser.com/questions/1115206/will-dual-xeons-improve-android-studio-build-times/
I have tried to measure speed of Android Studio 3.1.4 on the same hardware: Macbook Pro 2011, RAM 4Gb, SSD 240GB Samsung, Core i5 2.4Ghz.
I have installed on this machine 3 different OS: Windows 10, MacOS Hight Sierra 10.13, Ubuntu 18.04.
Avarage build time (running command: gradlew clean build, gradlew clean assembleRelease) on MacOS/Ubuntu was around 30% faster than on Windows.
On my another working machine: Core i5 3.0 Ghz 7400, RAM 16Gb, SSD 250Gb. Build time takes 4.34min on Windows 10 machine.
The same project on a little bit slower processor, but with the same RAM and SSD and it is running Ubuntu 16.04 build time takes two times faster!!
Well I was shocked with results, but still I choose Windows as development machine, because it's much more comfortable for me to use comfortable and
usable keyboard and sotfware than on Unix like systems. And even if I had to choose between MacOS and Ubuntu - mac is really much easier to setup everything, and
Ubuntu is too complex to use for usual people. Choise is up to you.
I am planning to install VirtualBox to try out newer operating systems and tools.
Is it safe to install on office computer. Basically below are my questions.
Does VirtualBox consume lot of resources and slow down the system.
Is the installation heavy weight.
Is it easy to uninstall.
Does running a virtual PC (windows 8.1) on a Windows7 (host) pc has any issues?
How is the performance of the virtual OS (windows 8.1 in this case) compared to like a dual boot setup?
Are there any free better options than VirtualBox?
Memory is not an issue as I will be able to spare atleast 30gb for virtual box installation.
Really would appreciate your inputs.
Here's the gist:
Pro's:
Not too heavy to install(102MB installer)
Easy to setup
Easy to administer
Supports lots of OS's, up through Windows 10 (10 is slow)
Light performance hit for modern hardware
Easy to uninstall
Cons:
Company's computer (is that okay with them?)
Installs a network adapter (needs admin privilege)
Some performance hit (depends on hardware)
On my Athlon Phenom II X4 (made in 2011), with 8GB of RAM and 2 HDD's in RAID, with Radeon card, every OS I've tried runs smooth, except for Windows 10. You'll have to turn down (or off) translucent window borders and backgrounds, maybe, but that's it.
Windows 7 and 8 are as smooth as butter, but transparency is off. If you have a new Core I7 machine with buckets of RAM, you shouldn't have a problem.
Linux, FreeBSD, XP, even DOS and Win3 run in there with no problems.
Windows 8.1 Guest, under my Windows 7 Host worked just fine. Possibly turn a few bells and whistles off, but should work fine. I always use a Bridged connection, so the VM has its own IP address on my LAN. Windows 10 is slow at this point. I'm sure they'll address it soon.
Hope this helps.
I am planning to develop an automated test solution with multiple windows machines and multiple ubuntu machines that perform related/interdependent tasks. To start the project, I'd like to have one or two windows machines (virtual) and a few ubuntu machines (virtual) running on a single desktop. It seems likely that I will be pushing a single desktop to the limit here so I am trying to guess if I will have better luck if my host OS is ubuntu or if it is Windows 7. I would be able to use the host OS as one of the machines in my environment. The desktop is some sort of above average Dell, but nothing really impressive.
Does anyone have any insight here? I've worked mostly with VMWare in the past and my host was windows along with my VMs.
Note: VirtualBox is a type-2 hypervisor (it runs on the host OS, not on the hardware like a type-1 hypervisor) and tends to offer weaker performance than, for example, Hyper-V, ESX or XEN (type-1 hypervisors).
Therefore, if performance is a considerable concern, you may squeeze more juice out of Win8 or Windows Server 2012 box running, for example, Hyper-V. Further reading on this here and here (YMMV).
How your environment will run when hosted by a Windows vs. a Linux box is, frankly impossible to tell. I suggest you build your VM's and try dual-booting your machine in Windows and Linux and measuring your scenario. Be sure to have enough RAM in the host to allocate enough working RAM to each VM and enough IO throughput that your host doesn't end up dragging the perf of all VM's down if one VM saturates the machine's IO.
One last note of caution though: Don't completely trust fine-grained perf results measured on VM's - even the best hypervisors cannot truly replicate the perf' characteristics of code running on bare-metal. Treat your measurements as a guideline only.
Measure, then measure again. Measure again just to be sure ... and THEN tweak your config and re-measure, measure, measure ;)
My $0.02:
If its VirtualBox you are using I would go with Ubuntu for certain. I have an AMD 945 Phenom with 16GB of Ram with 12.04LTS 64bit . I can usually have 2 VM's running Windows and / or Ubuntu guests and never consume more than 7 GBs of RAM . If your running them in a testing solution you could expect to probably see 12 maybe 13 GBs of RAM, but the CPU might be your problem. My AMD Phenom runs great, but would be maxed out for sure. I use VMWare at work and on my Laptop and would recommend that if you were running a Windows Host. I also have VMWare on my Ubuntu host, but it just does not run as well as it does on Windows., at least for me.
I've been experimenting quite a bit with my new macbook pro and have run into significant performance issues with VMWare fusion as well as running natively from bootcamp.
My three scenarios are:
1) Native booting from bootcamp (16gig, SSD)
2) Native booting OSX, VMWARE fusion running from bootcamp partition (8 gig ram for vmware plus 4 of out processors)
3) Native booting OSX, VMWARE fusion running from files on native OSX partition (SSD) (8 gig ram for vmware plus 4 of out processors)
I don't have enough space to try all these at the same time but I'm suspicious that number three is significantly faster than either 1 or 2.
I've found that in both 1 and 2 (which is what I have loaded now on my computer), doing things like building large projects with visual studio 2010 boggs down, where as on my Lenovo W520 running on the same type of SSD, I don't get bogged down. I am surprised native bootcamp is any slower, but it seems to be.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Native boot has always been faster for me (understandably, with no abstraction layers)
As for the other two, there shouldn't be much difference. Windows is still running through the same abstraction layer, so if the same amount of computing power is available then they should be comparable. If one is on an SSD, that would explain some of the speed difference.
On the one running on top of OSX, does it slow down when you do a lot of processor-intensive tasks under OSX? If so, it's the SSD making the difference there - but it still shouldn't be faster than VMWare.
I've found that 3 is faster than option 2, and option 1 was by far the fastest. Natively booting to windows with bootcamp was much quicker and felt more like a normal native windows laptop. When I run vmware with a clean image (non bootcamp) it seems to run ok, however I've found the best option is as follows.
vmware settings (best option for me considering my system specs)
2 processors for windows VM
4gb RAM allocated within vmware
My system specs:
2.4ghz i7 (oct 2011 model MBP).
8gb total ram
I've found that bootcamp was slightly faster than vmware (non bootcamp image), but I still use vmware the majority of the time because I like using the host OS for things like mail/chat/browsing.
I'm running visual studio 2010 SP1 on a .net 4.0 WPF project. I use Telerik control suite, Entity framework and Oracle data access components. Our project is pretty small still but it builds in about 6 seconds after a "clean". (1 solution with 3 projects).
I'd like to ask anybody who has built a virtualized VS2010 environment in VirtualBox or VMware, which one was able to work out of the box without too much tweaking? Or both need workarounds to get stuff working?
Both are fine as long as you install the respective tools and drivers provided for the guest OS
If you're using VMWare Workstation, you can leverage even more out of the environment by installing Visual Studio on the Host PC, and using the Guest VM for debugging, if your application crashes you can actually rewind back to before the crash and step through your code with the same heap and stack before it crashed!
Basically, I suggest going with VMWare Workstation. It's pretty cheap (assuming you get paid to program) and has many, many awesome features that you'll come to love. If you're a hobbyist/student programmer however, you'll likely find VirtualBox to be a little more functional than the free VMWare Player.
As far as performance goes, Intel and AMD both have shipped chips with hardware virtualization since 2005/2006 respectively. This is called VT-x or AMD-V, and often has to be enabled in the bios on older machines.
Basically this means that your BIOS handles Memory and I/O virtualization on this chip, while specialist drivers (e.g. VMWare Tools) are installed to improve graphics and mouse performance - effectively this means the resulting VM has near native performance with minimal overhead.
Hope that helps!
You can work with a VS2010/Windows virtualized environment with no problems.
I've worked with such combination and I had no problems. Both VMWare and VirtualBox are stable so far since years and Windows OS virtualization works properly.
Obviously, you can have performance loss, because a virtualized OS has more bottle necked access to resources than a host one, but current CPUs from Intel and AMD have advanced virtualization instruction extensions which accelerates virtualization operations.
So... Just go ahead!
I don't know your requirement but there is also a great alternative using Win 7.
You can create a vhd file and boot on the vhd file.
A few steps more, you can create a base vhd file with everything you need, mark it as readonly and create as many differential disk as you want.
The drawback of this method are these ones :
it's a bit tricky to create the base and diff disk, because you have to do it in the setup console of windows setup (but google can help you)
there is a small performance impact on the disk I/O (but lower than the visualization environment)
you can run only one system at a time. In fact, nothing disallow you to install a virtualization software
you can't have your "host" and it's potential tools (corporate email, etc.)
but at least, the performance will be greatly better than a virtualization software.