Arthur Fuller
fuller.artful at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 16:21:41 CST 2012
Ok, I stand corrected. Maybe I just don't have the Big Box with a ton of RAM; that's not a maybe, that's a fact. All I can claim in my defense is that I run Ubuntu, Mint, and Win7 on separate boxes, and there is no comparison on performance. They are all operating simultaneously. The Linux boxes were seriously cheap; the Win7 box was a tad more expensive but still not unreasonable. Recently I decided that I also need a WinXP box, and purchased one with 2GB RAM for less than $100. Yes, it only had a 100MB hard disk, but who cares? That's way more space than installation of everything dating to that era demands. However, lest you think that I am a 100% happy camper, this is not so. I still want a CP/M box and a pure DOS box too. And I don't want VMs, I want the real thing -- totally dedicated to exactly one purpose/OS. A. On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Salakhetdinov Shamil <mcp2004 at mail.ru>wrote: > Hi Arthur -- > > I have a Win8 Prof notebook with 12GB RAM, 256 GB SSD and 1TB HDD. > That's quite a lot. > And so I wanted to use/share them to be used for different OSes, tasks, > customers, relatives, VMs, security contexts... > I can split SSD and HDD on logical disks as I have been doing in the past > but handling logical disks would be a PITA. > So virtual HDDs seems to be "what doctor ordered"... > > Did I educate you? If not - please educate me :) > > Thank you. > > -- Shamil > > > > Понедельник, 3 декабря 2012, 15:08 от Arthur Fuller < > fuller.artful at gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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