Arthur Fuller
fuller.artful at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 14:08:40 CST 2012
Ok, maybe I am getting something absolutely wrong here, but I fail to comprehend the VM thing. It seems to me that given the plummeting price of hardware, VMs have no reason to exist. For example, all you need for a bitchin' Linux box or XP box or Windows 7 box is about $500 or less. Said box would run way faster than any VM, and if you have a KVM then you have about 4 or 5 boxes all running at once, and push a button to switch from this one to that one. Granted, there is also the consumption-of-electricity issue to to factor into this, but even granting that, I still don't get it. So let us suppose that I want two Linux boxes, onw XP box, one Windows 7 box, a dedicated server, and although I don't yet have the money, a Windows 8 box. The XP and Linux boxes think 2GB is wealth. The Win7 and Win8 prefer a tad more, and the server more than a tad more. But my point is, why not just buy a separate box for each task? We're not talking about huge amounts of loot here. And the gain is that everything runs as quickly as it can! So maybe I'm missing something important here; in which case, please educate me. A. On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Salakhetdinov Shamil <mcp2004 at mail.ru>wrote: > Hi Stuart and John -- > > Thank you for your comments. > > Yes, I do remember MS DOS Stacker etc. but I have never used virtual hard > disks in MS Windows: I have asked about performance hit because I have > found that when setting a "map network drive" share from VM to a host PC > virtual harddisk it takes some time even to create and save via notepad.exe > a small text file. During that time notepad.exe becomes "frozen". When you > restart VM with "map network drive" share automatically remapped then such > a "performance hit side effect" disappears... > > Anyway I'm going to try using virtual hard disks to keep the source files > and test databases for my customers projects... > > Thank you. > > -- Shamil > > Mon 3 Dec 2012 13:36:06 от "Stuart McLachlan" <stuart at lexacorp.com.pg>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I did some testing a while ago with Access and VirtualBox. > > > > > > There was no appreciable difference when writing and reading large test > datasets between > > > Access running directly in Win 7 and running in a VirtualBox installation > with a virtual HD. > > > > > > Certainly nothing a user would notice. > > > > > > Except in one instance where I created a new virtual machine and told it > to create a > > > "dyanically allocated" disk rather "fixed size" - that really slowed down > the initial writes :-) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Stuart > > > > > > On 2 Dec 2012 at 20:28, jwcolby wrote: > > > > > > > Is the average Windows 7 desktop user going to notice the overhead of > reading and writing to a > > > > virtual disk? > > > > > > > > John W. Colby > > > > Colby Consulting > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dba-VB mailing list > > > >dba-VB at databaseadvisors.com > > > >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-vb > > > >http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dba-VB mailing list > dba-VB at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-vb > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > -- Arthur Cell: 647.710.1314 Prediction is difficult, especially of the future. -- Niels Bohr