From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GltMN-0000nB-4P for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:33:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kAJKVjXQ028069; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:31:45 GMT Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kAJKTeMk010135 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:29:41 GMT Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so3645756nfb for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=W1bMQHwXFvpFPtri1KmMMOu29HQFjRS5TRU4EaECCTSEPeoD0A4Ys3ECvKzhVt+4j2EKRbPRcAPjKsld+UfyBnTozt6ue4/Q91OUDps5cwhakj2KhO1oANDbL4G0mjBJFilbd1USL+ELbyEVSMRgr4kpqR73vhOfj91gHY4xM58= Received: by 10.82.135.13 with SMTP id i13mr479815bud.1163968180635; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:29:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.154.17 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:29:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9b1675090611191229i711acf1es310bf0e0779e22ba@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:29:40 -0700 From: "Trenton Adams" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Mini Gentoo in VMWare In-Reply-To: <010101c702f6$b32d0170$450a0a0a@locutus> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9b1675090611052119i68691356s92670db202f9120f@mail.gmail.com> <010101c702f6$b32d0170$450a0a0a@locutus> X-Archives-Salt: 95d6fc58-232c-49c5-8064-c52624a8c408 X-Archives-Hash: 73208233f4b7d8a8cda93575c3b6d013 Your slowness could be due to not telling vmware to allocate all memory into physical memory, and not using a full sized disk image. It seems like vmware accesses the blocks directly, when you pre-allocate. And if the image gets fragmented, vmware warns you about it, so that you can ask it to defragment it. But, if you're using a resizable image, then you may see some slowness. I bench marked the disk running gentoo linux on a Dell D820 notebook, in native mode. I copied that same gentoo over to a VM, and ran into in windows on the same D820 Notebook, and got slightly better performance results, by about 2-5 M/sec. I used "bonnie++ -c 5 -s 4096 -r 768 -u someone". I haven't tried it on a dynamically re-sizable disk. These results indicate to me that VMware is using direct block access, and bypassing the file system. Either that, or simply keeping it un-fragmented makes a big difference. ! As far as compiling slower, I've found there is a very MINOR difference between a real machine, and a VM. On 11/7/06, Daevid Vincent wrote: > I use a Gentoo VM for a lot of LAMP dev work, and I can tell you it's kind > of painful to upgrade packages with all the compiling. VMWare is slower than > normal to compile, mostly due to disk I/O. Since each HD is a big-ass file. > > A few optimizations I might suggest: > > Partition a dedicated physical hard drive into chunks and use VMWare's "raw" > disk so you have real hardware/hard disks. I'd suggest a very fast SCSI > drive for the best performance since you're running several VMs. > > Also, look into the VMWare server version which uses the raw iron a bit > better as it's dedicated to running many VMs. > > I find that more RAM on VMWare has a point of deminishing returns. I have a > VM that I dedicate 512MB of my 2GBs and honestly it feels slower than when I > give it 128-256MB only. It may be a WinXP thing that it's not efficiently > using the RAM right or something. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Trenton Adams [mailto:trenton.d.adams@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:19 PM > > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Mini Gentoo in VMWare > > > > Yes, VMWare is fit for the task, simply because I would be using it on > > a windows machine. Unless there is something better for a windows > > machine? > > > > Thanks for the hints. > > > > On 11/3/06, Harm Geerts wrote: > > > On Friday 03 November 2006 06:43, Trenton Adams wrote: > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > > > Has anyone here played with minimalizing everything for > > use in vmware? > > > > > > > > Basically what I want to do is create a series of VERY > > tiny VMs that > > > > are all independent of each other, which provide one service. For > > > > instance, I might put apache on one VM, and tomcat on > > another, and so > > > > on. Obviously, I would want their memory usage to be absolutely > > > > minimized, seeing that I would like to run them all on > > one computer. > > > > I would probably provide them 64M-128M of RAM each, for > > their specific > > > > service. Perhaps a little more if really required. > > > > > > > > Is there really anything that I should worry about? > > Perhaps I should > > > > just DO IT? > > > > > > Nick[1] made a post about minimizing Gentoo a while back. > > > But that topic was mainly about the disk usage. > > > I suppose you would benefit from a system that uses the -Os > > flag to create > > > small binairies. > > > > > > But do you think vmware is fit for such a task? > > > vmware is a big strain on resources itself. > > > You might want to have a look at xen[2] instead. > > > > > > [1] > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/160899/focus=160903 > > > [2] http://www.xensource.com/xen/xen/index.html > > > -- > > > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > > > > > > > -- > > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > > > > > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list