separate partition for VMs?

Timothy Daniels · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 22

When running VMs, would it be better to run them
in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
be the same as putting data on a separate partition?

*TimDaniels*

Archived from group: microsoft>public>virtualpc

Paul Adare · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 134

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:35:18 -0800, Timothy Daniels wrote:

> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?

The partition you store your VHDs on makes no difference at all. What makes
a difference is storing them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Virtual Machines
http://www.identit.ca
Netnews is like yelling, "Anyone want to buy a used car?" in a crowded
theater.

Timothy Daniels · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 22

"Paul Adare" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>
>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>
> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.

It sounds like the same reason that one would
put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?

*TimDaniels*

Steve Jain · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 835

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:24:12 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
wrote:

>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>
>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>
> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>
>*TimDaniels*
>

I don't think that would help much, could be worse. Since your host
OS is using the other partition, you're going to have a lot head
travel between partitions as the host OS and VM are reading and
writing.

A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or external, if you
want better VM performance.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

Timothy Daniels · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 22

"Steve Jain" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>
>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>
>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>
>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>
>>*TimDaniels*
>>
>
> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>
> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
> external, if you want better VM performance.

I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
as in:
"...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
be the best partition for VMs ..."

Would you agree with that revised statement?

*TimDaniels*

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

I just make sure the drives are on separate controllers so I can get
asynchronius reads and writes. With SATA drives it happens naturally.

"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message @TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Steve Jain" wrote:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>>
>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>>
>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>>
>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>>
>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>
> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
> as in:
> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>
> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>
> *TimDaniels*
>

Steve Jain · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 835

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:10:30 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
wrote:

>"Steve Jain" wrote:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>>
>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>>
>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>>
>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>>
>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>
> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
>as in:
> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>
> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>
>*TimDaniels*
>

Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive for my
VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently out across multiple
drives for best performance.

--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.

Timothy Daniels · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 22

Thanks. I had overlooked the same-controller situation.

*TimDaniels*

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
> I just make sure the drives are on separate controllers so
> I can get asynchronius reads and writes. With SATA
> drives it happens naturally.
>
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> "Steve Jain" wrote:
>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>>>
>>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>>>
>>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>>>
>>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>>
>> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
>> as in:
>> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
>> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>>
>> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>

Timothy Daniels · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 22

"Steve Jain" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>
>>"Steve Jain" wrote:
>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>>>
>>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>>>
>>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>>>
>>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>>
>> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
>>as in:
>> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
>> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>>
>> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>>
>>*TimDaniels*
>>
>
> Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive
> for my VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently
> out across multiple drives for best performance.

Thanks, Steve. I'll keep that in mind for my later desktop
configurations. Right now, I'm stuck with a laptop with a single
HD and no external drives. I could only imagine in this case
that a separate partition for the VMs might make the VMs
easier to backup since they're just data.

*TimDaniels*

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

By all means get an external drive. While a lot of folks use a usb
enclosure I suggest you think about an external SATA enclosure (the transfer
rate is many time that of a usb connection). What I use for a laptop is an
ExpressCard/34 card with two SATA connectors and an enclosure with a SATA
connector. I get full SATAII speed.

Even with a usb connection a vm does fine with its files on the external
drive.

"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message $fCDKMdIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Steve Jain" wrote:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>"Steve Jain" wrote:
>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>>>>
>>>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>>>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>>>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>>>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>>>>
>>>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>>>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>>>
>>> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
>>>as in:
>>> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
>>> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>>>
>>> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>>>
>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive
>> for my VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently
>> out across multiple drives for best performance.
>
> Thanks, Steve. I'll keep that in mind for my later desktop
> configurations. Right now, I'm stuck with a laptop with a single
> HD and no external drives. I could only imagine in this case
> that a separate partition for the VMs might make the VMs
> easier to backup since they're just data.
>
> *TimDaniels*
>
>

Timothy Daniels · Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Posts: 22

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> "Steve Jain" wrote:
>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Steve Jain" wrote:
>>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>>>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>>>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>>>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>>>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>>>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>>>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>>>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>>>>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>>>>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>>>>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>>>>>
>>>>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>>>>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>>>>
>>>> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
>>>>as in:
>>>> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
>>>> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>>>>
>>>> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>>>>
>>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive
>>> for my VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently
>>> out across multiple drives for best performance.
>>
>> Thanks, Steve. I'll keep that in mind for my later desktop
>> configurations. Right now, I'm stuck with a laptop with a single
>> HD and no external drives. I could only imagine in this case
>> that a separate partition for the VMs might make the VMs
>> easier to backup since they're just data.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
> By all means get an external drive. While a lot of folks use a usb enclosure
> I suggest you think about an external SATA enclosure
> (the transfer rate is many time that of a usb connection). What I
> use for a laptop is an ExpressCard/34 card with two SATA
> connectors and an enclosure with a SATA connector. I get ful
> SATAII speed.
>
> Even with a usb connection a vm does fine with its files on the
> external drive.

Getting an external eSATA box (by Kingwin) for a SATA drive
and an eSATA ExpressCard (by SIIG) are my ultimate goals, but
I'm still "studenting" right now, and I'm pinching pennies. Like they
say about speed: "Speed costs money - how fast do ya wanna go?"

*TimDaniels*

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

zoooooooooooooooooooooom!!!!

"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message @TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>> "Steve Jain" wrote:
>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Steve Jain" wrote:
>>>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>>>>>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>>>>>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>>>>>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>>>>>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>>>>>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>>>>>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>>>>>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>>>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>>>>>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>>>>>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>>>>>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>>>>>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>>>>>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>>>>>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>>>>>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
>>>>>as in:
>>>>> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>>>>> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
>>>>> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>>>>>
>>>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive
>>>> for my VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently
>>>> out across multiple drives for best performance.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Steve. I'll keep that in mind for my later desktop
>>> configurations. Right now, I'm stuck with a laptop with a single
>>> HD and no external drives. I could only imagine in this case
>>> that a separate partition for the VMs might make the VMs
>>> easier to backup since they're just data.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>>
>>>
>> By all means get an external drive. While a lot of folks use a usb
>> enclosure I suggest you think about an external SATA enclosure
>> (the transfer rate is many time that of a usb connection). What I
>> use for a laptop is an ExpressCard/34 card with two SATA
>> connectors and an enclosure with a SATA connector. I get ful
>> SATAII speed.
>>
>> Even with a usb connection a vm does fine with its files on the
>> external drive.
>
> Getting an external eSATA box (by Kingwin) for a SATA drive
> and an eSATA ExpressCard (by SIIG) are my ultimate goals, but
> I'm still "studenting" right now, and I'm pinching pennies. Like they
> say about speed: "Speed costs money - how fast do ya wanna go?"
>
> *TimDaniels*
>

Vincent · Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 20

What about using an external flash drive for the VHD? It has the same
transfer speed than an external hard disk (USB 2.0) and could be more
reliable 'cause it's not affected by shocks. Now we have 8 and 16 gb flash
drives.... and could be used (I guess). It could be better (but expensive)
to use the new SSD.. (solid state drives) which are prtty much the same
technology than USB drives (Flash) but has better performance.... (so they
said)

Steve Jain escribió en el mensaje de noticias
lvhrr39qifko9t8ofu12ks6rn0a746ffu9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:10:30 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
> wrote:
>
> >"Steve Jain" wrote:
> >> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
> >>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
> >>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
> >>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
> >>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
> >>>>
> >>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
> >>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
> >>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
> >>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
> >>>
> >>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
> >>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
> >>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
> >>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
> >>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
> >>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
> >>>
> >>>*TimDaniels*
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
> >> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
> >> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
> >> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
> >>
> >> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
> >> external, if you want better VM performance.
> >
> > I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
> >as in:
> > "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
> > I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
> > be the best partition for VMs ..."
> >
> > Would you agree with that revised statement?
> >
> >*TimDaniels*
> >
>
> Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive for my
> VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently out across multiple
> drives for best performance.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.

Vincent · Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 20

USB Flash drives are not so expensive.... with 8Gb we are fine wtih
VirtualPC...
I think SATA drives with an external adapter will still run at USB 2.0...
pretty much the same than a pen drive... or... Am I wrong? (please let me
know)

Timothy Daniels escribió en el mensaje de noticias
efk37MPdIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
> > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >> "Steve Jain" wrote:
> >>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"Steve Jain" wrote:
> >>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
> >>>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
> >>>>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
> >>>>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
> >>>>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
> >>>>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
> >>>>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
> >>>>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
> >>>>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
> >>>>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
> >>>>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
> >>>>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
> >>>>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>*TimDaniels*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
> >>>>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
> >>>>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
> >>>>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
> >>>>> external, if you want better VM performance.
> >>>>
> >>>> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
> >>>>as in:
> >>>> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
> >>>> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
> >>>> be the best partition for VMs ..."
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you agree with that revised statement?
> >>>>
> >>>>*TimDaniels*
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive
> >>> for my VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently
> >>> out across multiple drives for best performance.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Steve. I'll keep that in mind for my later desktop
> >> configurations. Right now, I'm stuck with a laptop with a single
> >> HD and no external drives. I could only imagine in this case
> >> that a separate partition for the VMs might make the VMs
> >> easier to backup since they're just data.
> >>
> >> *TimDaniels*
> >>
> >>
> > By all means get an external drive. While a lot of folks use a usb
enclosure
> > I suggest you think about an external SATA enclosure
> > (the transfer rate is many time that of a usb connection). What I
> > use for a laptop is an ExpressCard/34 card with two SATA
> > connectors and an enclosure with a SATA connector. I get ful
> > SATAII speed.
> >
> > Even with a usb connection a vm does fine with its files on the
> > external drive.
>
> Getting an external eSATA box (by Kingwin) for a SATA drive
> and an eSATA ExpressCard (by SIIG) are my ultimate goals, but
> I'm still "studenting" right now, and I'm pinching pennies. Like they
> say about speed: "Speed costs money - how fast do ya wanna go?"
>
> *TimDaniels*
>
>

Colin Barnhorst · Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 210

Very wrong, sorry to say. My eSATA ExpressCard/34 adaptor permits my
external SATA drives to reach 3gbs versus the same drive enclosure connected
to a usb port only reaches 480mbs. There is no difference in transfer rates
between the external drives and an internal SATAII drive. I even have one
laptop that uses a 4200 rpm hard drive internally and the external SATA
drive is faster.

The problem with pen drives is the current 4GB file size limitation
regardless of the total capacity. Unless you are running a Win98 vm or a
very constrained XP vm they don't work out. When ExFat devices come on the
market then pen drives will be much more viable for running vms.

"Vincent" wrote in message @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> USB Flash drives are not so expensive.... with 8Gb we are fine wtih
> VirtualPC...
> I think SATA drives with an external adapter will still run at USB 2.0...
> pretty much the same than a pen drive... or... Am I wrong? (please let me
> know)
>
> Timothy Daniels escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> efk37MPdIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>> > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> >> "Steve Jain" wrote:
>> >>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Steve Jain" wrote:
>> >>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Paul Adare" wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> When running VMs, would it be better to run them
>> >>>>>>>> in a separate partition rather than in the same partition
>> >>>>>>>> as the hosting OS? Would the argument for or against
>> >>>>>>>> be the same as putting data on a separate partition?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The partition you store your VHDs on makes no
>> >>>>>>> difference at all. What makes a difference is storing
>> >>>>>>> them on a disk that is separate from the disk that
>> >>>>>>> your OS runs on and is as fast as you can manage.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It sounds like the same reason that one would
>> >>>>>>put a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>> >>>>>>I guess the outermost partition on the HD would
>> >>>>>>be the best partition for VMs because it spins at a
>> >>>>>>faster lineal speed than inner partitions and can
>> >>>>>>therefore transfer data faster to and from cache?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>*TimDaniels*
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I don't think that would help much, could be worse.
>> >>>>> Since your host OS is using the other partition, you're
>> >>>>> going to have a lot head travel between partitions as
>> >>>>> the host OS and VM are reading and writing.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A better idea is to use a 2nd hard drive, internal or
>> >>>>> external, if you want better VM performance.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I meant (and should have written) "on the 2nd HD",
>> >>>>as in:
>> >>>> "...a swap file on another (and faster) HD. If so,
>> >>>> I guess the outermost partition on the [2nd] HD would
>> >>>> be the best partition for VMs ..."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Would you agree with that revised statement?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>*TimDaniels*
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, I agree. I always try to have at least one extra drive
>> >>> for my VMs. I try to spread the ones I use concurrently
>> >>> out across multiple drives for best performance.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, Steve. I'll keep that in mind for my later desktop
>> >> configurations. Right now, I'm stuck with a laptop with a single
>> >> HD and no external drives. I could only imagine in this case
>> >> that a separate partition for the VMs might make the VMs
>> >> easier to backup since they're just data.
>> >>
>> >> *TimDaniels*
>> >>
>> >>
>> > By all means get an external drive. While a lot of folks use a usb
> enclosure
>> > I suggest you think about an external SATA enclosure
>> > (the transfer rate is many time that of a usb connection). What I
>> > use for a laptop is an ExpressCard/34 card with two SATA
>> > connectors and an enclosure with a SATA connector. I get ful
>> > SATAII speed.
>> >
>> > Even with a usb connection a vm does fine with its files on the
>> > external drive.
>>
>> Getting an external eSATA box (by Kingwin) for a SATA drive
>> and an eSATA ExpressCard (by SIIG) are my ultimate goals, but
>> I'm still "studenting" right now, and I'm pinching pennies. Like they
>> say about speed: "Speed costs money - how fast do ya wanna go?"
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
>
>