Dawgclan Network

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 07, 2012, 12:08:03 am

Login with username, password and session length
Dawgclan Network New Forum

HomeHome HelpHelp SearchSearch LoginLogin RegisterRegister
+  Dawgclan Network
|-+  News
| |-+  Network News
| | |-+  Status update (25/03/09)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Status update (25/03/09)  (Read 1279 times)
« on: March 25, 2009, 04:05:54 pm »
Offline Rothgar
Administrator
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 95

View Profile
Alright.

Well I tried Virtualbox, it seemed to be going good in the beginning. VirtualBox in the beginning was it was outperforming VMware Server 1.X however on closer inspection I think in heavy CPU load environments it doesn't cope as well.

One of my disk-image based vmdk's worked fine which ran Linux. I tried to boot my raw disk though and it would say "OS Not found" I realize I would probably have to repair install but I figured it would at least boot the OS and blue screen.

So I ran a repair install which didn't work. I then went through with a fresh install using the same partition and installation over-writing it, this also did not work...

I had to remove the partitions and start again to get up and running, not sure why the raw disk of VMware vs. raw disk of VirtualBox would have slightly different partition table structures?

In any case I got the OS loaded and started running some applications, the host CPU usage was hitting 100% for the application and the fans in the server were going crazy.

I did a lot of reading around including the "HAL" changes to Single processor, they did not help. One I did read from way back was loading a second virtual machine makes VirtualBox behave. For the hell of it I loaded up the second VirtualBox and paused it and my CPU usage dropped under real load to around 30-40%

So loading the second VirtualBox instance for some reason made the CPU usage normal? Hopefully this gets fixed soon.


On to my findings anyway:
Under no load the Virtualbox seems fairly fast, responsive and I like the fact that using VRDP you can achieve better resolutions than with VMware relying on the host graphic card or similar?

However I found that opening programs caused bigger CPU spikes than VMware Server seemed to on the Host and when you start to put the guest under load it in my opinion starts under-performing VMware Server. When there is a lot of intensive CPU operations happening in the guest things start to slow down a lot where as in VMware Server it seemed usable.

Conclusion:

I thought I'd post my findings of where things need fixing and improvements and how I found VirtualBox stacking up against VMware Server. I do look forward to seeing how VirtualBox progresses though and it seems to run quite well in most things.


So now I need to look back at VMware Server 1.X fun stuff.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
SMFone design by A.M.A, ported to SMF 1.1 RC3 by Aäron.
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.018 seconds with 18 queries.