I'm finding Parallels a little lacking in stability, performance and features with a 10.8 VM on a 10.8 host, and was wondering if this is a general trend, or just issues with 10.8 or am I alone in this experience (bum install?)?? - File copies over network are very slow; Approx 25 MBps over gigabit via AFP to a server I can normally sustain about twice that - File copies over the virtual network between the host & VM are also very slow - Network shares are unstable between host & VM (random unmounts happen, causing issues with open files) - Resizing disk does not work. After attempt, disk shows absurdly large number in Parallels (not in VM). - Remote Desktop to host does not update screen properly when running Parallels (may be fixed with new update, but hard to say as this issue is intermittent) These may be more feature requests than bugs/issues, but things that don't seem to work with an OS X VM, but do work with a Windows VM: - Cannot compact OS X disk image - No way to mount the guest filesystem directly on the host as there is with Windows - Cannot drag files directly between host & VM - No way to mount or install on devices directly I'm not seeing any CPU, Memory or Disk performance bottlenecks on the VM or the host via activity monitor. Running on modern equipment, 3.4 GHz i7 iMac w/ 32 GB RAM & 2.6 GHz i7 Mini w/ 16 GB, running the VM on an SSD or a Pegasus R4. Problems have persisted across both OS X updates as well as a few Parallels updates and corresponding Parallels Tools re-installs/updates. Rob
I just ran the latest update, with latest system updates on both the VM and the host. I'm getting 3.3 MBps via AFP over the bridged network between the VM and the host. The VM is running off a Pegasus R4, the host is running on a the otherwise idle 7200 RPM 1 TB in my 2012 Mac Mini. I'm getting ~35% CPU for Parallels, about 3 MBps sustained disk activity, 10 GB free RAM, there are no hardware limitations going on here. But without even crossing copper, I'm getting 3.3 MBps on a 1 gig virtual adapter. Thats 2.64% of the theoretical speed. 97% overhead? Ouch. Seriously? And I've been paying $50-60 every year to upgrade this product? I hope nobody is using this in any kind of business environment. Rob
