[SATLUG] Filesystem/RAID advice
othniel at gmail.com
Tue Oct 12 19:38:39 CDT 2010
So in response to "Virtualization DOES slow down the system" I would ask
you these questions:
1) How much RAM did you allocate for running XP in your test environment?
2) How many processors did you allocate to XP?
3) Is your guest operating system even able to use all such resources?
4) Why are you using a game which uses ActiveX to validate your point about
That is a measure of responsiveness not throughput or speed.
5) Why don't you acknowledge that Linux file systems are more reliable than
6) Since Windows doesn't have good drivers for the robust file systems
native to Linux,
why not acknowledge that accessing such file systems via a VM guest
and a standardized networking protocol is a reliable and high performance
way to interface
between a Windows application and a Linux disk's file system.
6) Do you have enough experience with accessing a disk and the files on it
Operating Systems to know why that is such a bad idea?
"Virtualization can speed up a Windows system."
Othniel Mark Graichen
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM,
<travis+ml-satlug at subspacefield.org<travis%2Bml-satlug at subspacefield.org>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 07:19:30PM -0500, Nate wrote:
> > On 10/11/10 5:21 PM, Todd W. Bucy wrote:
> >> you know this is not a bad option given the six and eight core CPUs
> >> coming out on the market. Giving up 4 to 6 cores and and 2 or 3 gigs of
> >> ram to run a prog in Win7 is feasible and would still allow you to
> >> continue doing 'serious' work with Linux.
> > I understand your point, and that would be valid for some tasks, but
> > there are times when I will need to boot into windows. If I am going to
> > invest in a 8-, 16- or 48-core machine I want to be able to leverage all
> > that power for the task at hand, whether it be on linux or on windows.
> Adding to your point:
> My experience with XP under Virtualbox on a x64 3GHz dual core is that
> it was way too slow and bursty to play even Civ 4. Virtualization
> DOES slow down the system. (It is faster to do virtual networking
> than real networking, but that's a different story)
> Trap-and-emulate can be several orders of magnitude slower than just
> doing something natively. Graphics are a serious problem for VMs,
> because you've got to scale, stretch and mix up into the host's GUI,
> which usually takes copying the data from guest to host, at least.
> Sound can also be a problem.
> And to your question:
> Cross-platform file systems are a thorny issue, and this is NOT by
> accident. There are reasons why NTFS is hard to do for F/LOSS.
> Most of us avoid it by using a network file system, but performance
> does suffer.
> There was a ext2fs driver for XP last I checked, but BE VERY CAREFUL
> and test it thoroughly; after installing it several years ago, every
> time I tried mounting a TrueCrypt volume, I got the BSOD, and it
> wasn't clear how to undo what I had done by installing it.
> I personally would trust my data on an ext2 partition far more than
> a NTFS partition, or anything that came out of Redmond.
> Regarding RAID, yeah, RAID 0 (no mirroring) or 10 (mirroring) is
> best for performance. Everything else tends to tank it, due to
> something I recall being called write amplification. Google did
> a study and picked 10 over 5 due to the fact that it required
> fewer I/O operations at the expense of capacity, which is in
> more plentiful supply.
> Virtualized disks also take a performance hit; you won't want to
> use them for your case, obviously.
> I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your
> My emails do not have attachments; it's a digital signature that your mail
> program doesn't understand. | http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/<http://www.subspacefield.org/%7Etravis/>
> If you are a spammer, please email john at subspacefield.org to get
> SATLUG mailing list
> SATLUG at satlug.org
> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to manage/unsubscribe
> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
More information about the SATLUG