On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Vincent Poy writes:
> > Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm
> > supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone
> > machine?
>
> It depends on what metric one uses to measure performance. Boots
> (loading kernel) with a graphics console are painfully slow, like
> 5-10% of native speed. CPU bound programs run at near-native speeds.
> I/O bound jobs are much slower.
>
> Memory is a very important factor -- 128MB or less is too little to
> run VMware at a reasonable speed. And to conserve memory, it really
> helps to use a "plain" disk rather than using a disk file. This
> entails vmware doing I/O to a raw disk partition rather than to a file
> and reduces memory use by eliminating double caching of data by the
> host and guest OSes.
>
> FWIW, my old 300MHz PII (128MB ram, disk file) was nearly unusable.
> My wife's 400MHz laptop (192MB ram, plain disk) is fairly decent. My
> new 1.2GHz Tbird (1GB ram, plain disk) feels quite fast. This is for
> my workload, which is typically an occasional boot into Windows.
Interesting. What happens if it's like the reverse where one runs
FreeBSD under vmware from Windows2000? Since 5-10% seems to be really
slow.
Cheers,
Vince - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Vice President ________ __ ____
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ]
WurldLink Corporation / / / / | / | __] ]
San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong / / / / / |/ / | __] ]
HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____]
Almighty1@IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
