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 Server 2005

Recent Virtual Server 2005 posts

* Deploy vm - Can"t copy boot.ini
* About MO Driver
* Odd Virtual Server 2005 Error causing Reboot
* SSL Certificate
* VSMT deloyvm makes tcp/ip traffic screwed up
* Afte migrating Server to Virtual Server, V. Server doesn"t start
* Ethernet Network performance - real vs virtual
* Is it possible to resize a Virtual Hard Disk?
* VS to use for restore testing environment
* virtual server - teminal services
* Error "LsaLogonUser() failed!" after installation
* Still can"t get reply from server after Ipsec is disabled
* Adding ISO images to "Known image files"
* cannot use more than 10 VMs at a time
* Host and Guest File sharing using Loopback adapter
* VMRC can"t re-connect after idle timeout
* Another Hardware question.
* Auto Login to VM based on Host User
* Script to put a VS in Save State to backup VHD?
* VMRC NTLM Authentication Loop

Add Solution

one vhd or more than one vhd

Source: microsoft.public.virtualserver
Sent: 02/24/2005
From: ronald warner
Message:

based on performance, is it better to have one big vhd (60GB) or two smaller
vhd (two 30GB)? or it does not make a difference?

thanks.

Post Reply | This is Spam! | Mark as Spam

Related Messages

Re: one vhd or more than one vhd

Sent: 02/24/2005
From: Steve Jain <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:16:51 -0600, Richard Cardona
<(email address - cut out)> wrote:

To expand a little on Richard's post, I think having 2 VHDs for the
same VM will decrease performance, since you'd have a the hard drive
head bouncing back and forth between the two files.

Also, unless you created the vhd's as fixed, I think your
fragmentation on the physical drive would increase a lot faster and
the extra overhead of dynamically expanding two vhd's instead of two.

--
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
Website: http://www.essjae.com
"This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use."

Show quoted text

>This depends on your hardware configuration and application within the virtual
>machine. If the vhd files are side-by-side on the same filesystem, then there is
>no benefit I can see from two disks. If the VHDs on are on separate disks with
>independent disk controllers for IO and your application in the VM is using
>files from both concurrently, it would make a difference.
>
>ronald warner wrote:
>> based on performance, is it better to have one big vhd (60GB) or two smaller
>> vhd (two 30GB)? or it does not make a difference?
>>
>> thanks.

Re: one vhd or more than one vhd

Sent: 02/24/2005
From: "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com>
Message:

Depends on what you're doing. The best performance is when the .vhd file is
on a different spindle from the system. I use an internal SATA and an
external usb2 drive for the virtual machine files. I use single .vhd files
for each vm. I don't what is to gain from using multiple .vhd files on a
vm, except where the initial estimate of storage to be needed was too low.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"ronald warner" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...

Show quoted text

> based on performance, is it better to have one big vhd (60GB) or two
> smaller
> vhd (two 30GB)? or it does not make a difference?
>
> thanks.

Re: one vhd or more than one vhd

Sent: 02/24/2005
From: Richard Cardona <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

This depends on your hardware configuration and application within the virtual
machine. If the vhd files are side-by-side on the same filesystem, then there is
no benefit I can see from two disks. If the VHDs on are on separate disks with
independent disk controllers for IO and your application in the VM is using
files from both concurrently, it would make a difference.

ronald warner wrote:

Show quoted text

> based on performance, is it better to have one big vhd (60GB) or two smaller
> vhd (two 30GB)? or it does not make a difference?
>
> thanks.

Re: one vhd or more than one vhd

Sent: 02/24/2005
From: "Robert Comer" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:

If you can put the 2nd vhd on a different physical disk it would be a bit
faster, otherwise I don't think it would help.

- Bob Comer

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

Show quoted text

> based on performance, is it better to have one big vhd (60GB) or two
> smaller
> vhd (two 30GB)? or it does not make a difference?
>
> thanks.

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: