ASP Developer Network - Brought to you by Steve Radich and BitShop, Inc. - http://www.bitshop.com

ASPDeveloper

ASPDeveloper.Net / VirtualServerFAQ.COM

Make sure you go to our home page for:

* Virtual Server 2005 FAQ
* ASP.Net 2.0 Information
* ASP.Net 2.0 Streaming Tutorials
* ASP.Net 2.0 HTML based Tutorials

Made possible by Business Internet Technology Shop (BitShop)

Virtual PC

Recent Virtual PC posts

* Setup Virtual PC 2007
* VPC 2007 single-threaded?
* Disk performance comparing different options?
* Shrink .vhd when using differencing disks?
* Internet in the Vpc
* Ram
* Can I get info on real, physical hardware ?
* windows image files .wim
* How to play XG midi files on your Vista machine using Virtual PC
* ipv4 address: duplicate, how to fix it
* How to set up 3 NICs on VPC?
* noobie questions on vpc
* No desktop or start menu
* Windows XP virtual pc hard drive fails to commit changes
* Is VPC 2007 use port number?
* This sounds cool
* Virtual PC Application for VPN?
* Mini newsgroup FAQ for the week of 11/30/2008
* Disk space problem
* Dynamically expanding virtual hard disk?

Add Solution

over compensated

Source: microsoft.public.virtualpc
Sent: 12/06/2008
From: db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>.
Message:

I set up winxp sp2 home version
on virtual pc with great success.

I set its ram to be 512 and
its partition to be 80 gigs.

further, I set the physical
partition for the virtual o.s.
to be 80 gigs as well.

the stats above are similar
to a physical disk drive slaved
on this machine with that o.s.

however, I noticed that perhaps
I overcompensated with
allocating 80 gigs for
both the virtual partition and
the physical partition.

maybe 40 gigs for both would
have been reasonable but like
hair cuts, its best to have more
than to be short.

since I have a strong feeling I
won't be utilizing 80 gigs of
physical partition, can I shrink
it to 40 gigs?

however it seems reasonable that
it won't harm the virtual o.s.

the concern I have is that
I don't want to reinstall the
o.s. and then get it reactivated
and then redownload all the
updates again.

thanks.

Post Reply | This is Spam! | Mark as Spam

Related Messages

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/06/2008
From: db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>.
Message:

for safety purposes.

I actually already had
the extra partition anyways.

at this time the two vh files
are on my partition z and it
is 80 gigs.

however the space being
used by the virtual files are
about 5 gigs and growing.

but I don't think I will ever
grow to be more than 40 gigs.

so, would I be correct in
thinking that shrinking
z from 80 to 40 will de stablize
the virtual o.s.

"Mark Rae [MVP]" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> " db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>." <databaseben via hotmail> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>
>> I set its RAM to be 512MB and its partition to be 80GB.
>>
>> However, I noticed that perhaps I overcompensated with allocating 80GB
>> for
>> both the virtual partition and the physical partition.
>
> You created a separate partition? Why...?
>
>
> --
> Mark Rae
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://www.markrae.net

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/06/2008
From: db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>.
Message:

thnks.

"Mark Rae [MVP]" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> " db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>." <databaseben via hotmail> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>
>>>> I set its RAM to be 512MB and its partition to be 80GB.
>>>>
>>>> However, I noticed that perhaps I overcompensated with allocating 80GB
>>>> for both the virtual partition and the physical partition.
>>>
>>> You created a separate partition? Why...?
>>
>> For safety purposes.
>
> Safety purposes...? Do you install every piece of software (e.g. Word,
> Excel etc) on a separate partition...?
>
>> So, would I be correct in thinking that shrinking z from 80GB to 40GB
>> will destabilize
>> the virtual o.s.
>
> It will make not the slightest difference... VPC is just an application
> like any other application...
>
>
> --
> Mark Rae
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://www.markrae.net

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/06/2008
From: "Mark Rae [MVP]" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

" db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>." <databaseben via hotmail> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

You created a separate partition? Why...?

--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

Show quoted text

> I set its RAM to be 512MB and its partition to be 80GB.
>
> However, I noticed that perhaps I overcompensated with allocating 80GB for
> both the virtual partition and the physical partition.

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/06/2008
From: "Mark Rae [MVP]" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

" db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>." <databaseben via hotmail> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Safety purposes...? Do you install every piece of software (e.g. Word, Excel
etc) on a separate partition...?

It will make not the slightest difference... VPC is just an application like
any other application...

--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

Show quoted text

>>> I set its RAM to be 512MB and its partition to be 80GB.
>>>
>>> However, I noticed that perhaps I overcompensated with allocating 80GB
>>> for both the virtual partition and the physical partition.
>>
>> You created a separate partition? Why...?
>
> For safety purposes.
> So, would I be correct in thinking that shrinking z from 80GB to 40GB will
> destabilize
> the virtual o.s.

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/07/2008
From: Bo Berglund <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:26:06 -0600, db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>. <databaseben
via hotmail> wrote:

If you have put the VPC files (*.VMC and *.VHD) on a physical
partition on your host which is not used by anything else (which is
what I believe you are saying) then you did something un-necessary...
The two files are just data files on the host system and can reside
anywhere you like on the host.

It has been recommended (but only for *performance* resaons) to put
the VHD file on a separate hard disk drive from the one which holds
the operating system of the host, though. The reason for this is that
the host operating system and the guest operating system both need to
read/write data constantly and if the VHD file is on the same hard
drive then the read head arm must constantly jump between the two
positions on the disk, slowing down the system.
But if there are two *physical* hard disks for the operating system of
the host and the VHD virtual disk file used by the guest, then the
need for "jumping" is removed and the system gets faster.

Notice that just creating a separate partition on a big single dtive
does not help! It is still the same read head arm that needs to move!
It might even make it worse because two partitions are guaranteed to
be far away in the disk surface whereas files in the same partition
can be closer...

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

Show quoted text

>I set up winxp sp2 home version
>on virtual pc with great success.
>
>I set its ram to be 512 and
>its partition to be 80 gigs.
>
>further, I set the physical
>partition for the virtual o.s.
>to be 80 gigs as well.
>

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/07/2008
From: db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>.
Message:

thanks for the info.

but respectfully, I don't agree with the thoughts
about the disk arm as it was engineered to move
back and fourth from the beginning to the end of
the disk with assurance.

if however, there was a legitmate concern about
over working the arm,

then the engineers should not have developed large
harddrives.

otherwise, disks that are 90% full of data would
crash and burn, especially during indexing and
checkdisking and with opening files and programs
that may be located on the far end of the disk.

in any case, I am very pleased to have created
the additional partitions and have stored the
virtual o.s.'s on them.

I would firmly suggest a similar set up whenever
possible.

thanks again for replying and providing some
of your feedback. it was very kind of you to
do so.

"Bo Berglund" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:26:06 -0600, db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>. <databaseben
> via hotmail> wrote:
>
>>I set up winxp sp2 home version
>>on virtual pc with great success.
>>
>>I set its ram to be 512 and
>>its partition to be 80 gigs.
>>
>>further, I set the physical
>>partition for the virtual o.s.
>>to be 80 gigs as well.
>>
>
> If you have put the VPC files (*.VMC and *.VHD) on a physical
> partition on your host which is not used by anything else (which is
> what I believe you are saying) then you did something un-necessary...
> The two files are just data files on the host system and can reside
> anywhere you like on the host.
>
> It has been recommended (but only for *performance* resaons) to put
> the VHD file on a separate hard disk drive from the one which holds
> the operating system of the host, though. The reason for this is that
> the host operating system and the guest operating system both need to
> read/write data constantly and if the VHD file is on the same hard
> drive then the read head arm must constantly jump between the two
> positions on the disk, slowing down the system.
> But if there are two *physical* hard disks for the operating system of
> the host and the VHD virtual disk file used by the guest, then the
> need for "jumping" is removed and the system gets faster.
>
> Notice that just creating a separate partition on a big single dtive
> does not help! It is still the same read head arm that needs to move!
> It might even make it worse because two partitions are guaranteed to
> be far away in the disk surface whereas files in the same partition
> can be closer...
>
> --
>
> Bo Berglund (Sweden)

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/07/2008
From: db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>.
Message:

oh, I see now!

yes, I agree with you as
well.

thanks.

"Bo Berglund" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:56:01 -0600, db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>. <databaseben
> via hotmail> wrote:
>
>>thanks for the info.
>>
>>but respectfully, I don't agree with the thoughts
>>about the disk arm as it was engineered to move
>>back and fourth from the beginning to the end of
>>the disk with assurance.
>>
>>if however, there was a legitmate concern about
>>over working the arm,
>>
>>then the engineers should not have developed large
>>harddrives.
>
> You did not get the message....
>
> What I was saying is that if the virtual machine's hard disk file (the
> VHD file) is placed on the same hard drive as the host system is
> running from, then one and the same hard drive will be involved in the
> reading and writing of data for *both* the host operating system and
> the virtual machine's operating system. Both of these accesses will
> happen interleaved and at all times.
>
> Now, imagine you have a single physical hard drive that has to switch
> between reading the data for the virtual machine (from its VHD file)
> and the host system data (Windows disk operations) at a very high
> speed. What will happen is that the disk drive will go back and forth
> from one location to another very rapidly, but the speed is now
> limited by the arm having to go across the disk surface (a mechanical
> movement with limited speed). THis is longer if you have partitioned
> the drive to two logical drives.
> What will happen is not that the drive will deteriorate in any way,
> but the farther apart these areas are on the disk surface the longer
> the traverse time will take and consequently the lower data rate you
> will get.
>
> Compare to the case with two physical disks where the operating system
> is on one and the VHD file on the other. In this case the disk arms
> (there are now to of them) can stay basically stationary on each drive
> and the switch between operating system access and virtual machine
> access is instantaneous in this respect. You still will have cylinder
> rotation time to account for, but that cannot be avoided.
>
> This is one reason for having the guest and host "disks" on different
> physical hard drives.
> Another one is if you place the VHD file on a USB2 connected external
> drive then you have an easily portable virtual machine. You can carry
> the USB disk to another computer rnning VPC2007 and use it there. But
> that is another story.
>
> I never said anything about harming the drives!
>
> --
>
> Bo Berglund (Sweden)

Re: over compensated

Sent: 12/07/2008
From: Bo Berglund <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:56:01 -0600, db ·´¯`·.¸. .><)))º>. <databaseben
via hotmail> wrote:

You did not get the message....

What I was saying is that if the virtual machine's hard disk file (the
VHD file) is placed on the same hard drive as the host system is
running from, then one and the same hard drive will be involved in the
reading and writing of data for *both* the host operating system and
the virtual machine's operating system. Both of these accesses will
happen interleaved and at all times.

Now, imagine you have a single physical hard drive that has to switch
between reading the data for the virtual machine (from its VHD file)
and the host system data (Windows disk operations) at a very high
speed. What will happen is that the disk drive will go back and forth
from one location to another very rapidly, but the speed is now
limited by the arm having to go across the disk surface (a mechanical
movement with limited speed). THis is longer if you have partitioned
the drive to two logical drives.
What will happen is not that the drive will deteriorate in any way,
but the farther apart these areas are on the disk surface the longer
the traverse time will take and consequently the lower data rate you
will get.

Compare to the case with two physical disks where the operating system
is on one and the VHD file on the other. In this case the disk arms
(there are now to of them) can stay basically stationary on each drive
and the switch between operating system access and virtual machine
access is instantaneous in this respect. You still will have cylinder
rotation time to account for, but that cannot be avoided.

This is one reason for having the guest and host "disks" on different
physical hard drives.
Another one is if you place the VHD file on a USB2 connected external
drive then you have an easily portable virtual machine. You can carry
the USB disk to another computer rnning VPC2007 and use it there. But
that is another story.

I never said anything about harming the drives!

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

Show quoted text

>thanks for the info.
>
>but respectfully, I don't agree with the thoughts
>about the disk arm as it was engineered to move
>back and fourth from the beginning to the end of
>the disk with assurance.
>
>if however, there was a legitmate concern about
>over working the arm,
>
>then the engineers should not have developed large
>harddrives.

Post Reply | This is Spam! | Mark as Spam

Other groups

Virtual PC (Mac)(3592)	Virtual PC(12844)	Virtual PC (French)(496)
Virtual Server 2005(6245)

Our Sponsors

Virtual Server 2005 Info Here!
http://www.aspdeveloper.net

Wiki

Blogs

Articles

Image galleries

File galleries

Forums

Maps

Directories

ASP Developer Network (since 1996) - Brought to you by Steve Radich and BitShop, Inc. - http://www.bitshop.com
Copyright © 1997-2005 by BitShop, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No content may be reproduced in any form without written permission from BitShop, Inc.
We will be honored to assist with reproduction rights on our material if you contact us.
We also can provide print articles for your magazine, private training seminars at your site, and conference presentations.
Thank you for visiting. Please bookmark our site if you found it useful!
If you wish to make a donation it will help further the development of these free resources: