What works better for you & why: parallels using a real partition or a virtual hdd?

[jalyst]

I'm not sure that I completely agree... I have not benchmarked this so I'm not talking from a point of knowledge however if you think about it, it makes sense there would be some extra overhead from using a VM file. Here is why:

If you were using a partition when Windows XP wanted a file it would simply request the file, the OS would as you say serially command the disk to read that set of tracks/sectors into the buffer and the file would be available.

When your "disk" is in a VM there must be an extra translation layer that intercepts the disk IO request and computes and performs a disk seek within the VM file. That translation has to take a small amount of time. Add that up over 10,000 disk operations and you will accumulate some time.

The question would be if this same intercept layer is functioning even when you have installed Parallels and Windows XP into a BootCamp partition. It may be and therefore there would be little benefit of doing that over a VM file if that was the case. I simply do not know. However I do know that Windows XP simple feels snapper when run directly in boot camp, IE not under Parallels. I would not say it is MUCH quicker but it is somewhat quicker.

That was the basis of my comment that I would fore go that "quicker feeling" for the ease and redundancy I gain from a Parallels VM. This morning as I wrote this post I copied my VM file off to an external HD. I do this about ever other day or before I plan to install anything new into WinXP.
M

I have to agree but I guess it depends on whether a similar sort of translation layer is occuring with a bootcamp partition....

I dunno, you're speaking from experience, have you noticed a little extra "snapiness" when using a partition as opposed to a virtual hdd on the same physical disk?

I'm about to try soon... I imagine the difference would be almost impossible to notice in most scenarios.

Of course the difference would definitely be noticeable once booted directly into windows on the same physical disk

 

[jalyst]

some good points John..

However it doesnt stop me wanting to milk the best out of my Mac mini and it's apps (which is essentially what we're trying to do here). I'm already a junkie, it's too late for me! ;-P

cheers,
jed

 

[jalyst]

I'll see if I can find some time to benchmark on a fixed sized virtual hdd versus using a real NTFS partition (both on the same, seperate, non bootdisk).

I might try some of the other combinations later on, but all with a seperate disk, as that is my setup.

But to find the right software to test this might prove to be the biiggest pain in the butt!

cheers,
jed

 

[jalyst]

I prefer a real partition so I can access the files with the virtual machine switched off.

that's a good point, and there's good backup software for windows, but the unreliability probs I've had are more to do with the app itself in OSX as opposed to the windows system going awry, so I guess good windows backupware isn't necessarily going to mean diddly-squat.
I;m going to run voth a virtual hdd (sperate physical disk) and NTFS partition (seperate physical disk) for a while and mull over the pros and cons some more.