Virtual Vs Host

GiB

GiB

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
154
Location
in a house
As the title really can a virtual machine run quicker than the host hardware its on.

I was under the assumption you lost speed on all accounts etc just gained the ability to shove more machines on the hardware and better utilise the power.

Silly question I know but seen crystaldiskmark and a couple of other go mentally fast on virtualbox, I assume its a bug in the software or something? anyone care to explain in more detail for me:)

Cheers

Gib
 

aln

aln

Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,076
Location
West Lothian, Scotland.
You should expect to lose between 10-20% performance on a virtual machine. Its not logical for it to run faster than its hosts. There must be an issue with the program, especially if you're testing local disks.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Feb 2009
Posts
14,814
Location
Exeter
There are other reasons - transparent page sharing etc.

Remember virtual disk data can reside in memory and vice versa which all helps, especially if there's a predictable repeatable pattern to the reads/writes as you'd expect in a synthetic benchmark
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Dec 2008
Posts
10,370
Location
England
Crude answer, but one example where it is certainly quicker. Make a ramdisk on the host, and put part/all of the guest onto it. Needs sufficient ram on the host, but two drives, one on ramdisk and one on physical for the vm works well.

I've not yet thought of any uses for this however.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Feb 2009
Posts
14,814
Location
Exeter
Crude answer, but one example where it is certainly quicker. Make a ramdisk on the host, and put part/all of the guest onto it. Needs sufficient ram on the host, but two drives, one on ramdisk and one on physical for the vm works well.

I've not yet thought of any uses for this however.

ESX utilises RAM in a similar (more efficient) manner by default
 
Back
Top Bottom