gmb29
Contributor
Contributor

VMWare 3.0.0 Performance

Hello all,

Just curious as to who else has performed an upgrade to 3.0.0 today, and how they are finding it.

Personally, I was quite excited about the ability to use Aero, and it that respect it does technically work but I find that with Aero on the VM is really close to unusable for day to day work, it just feels so sluggish and buggy. Have had a couple of complete expose lockups since as well which never happened before, and nothing else has changed.

Also, is it just my install or is multi-monitor completely ruined? Win 7 used to remember my monitor settings and play quite nicely with my two monitors under 2.0.6, but every reboot now is a lottery is what will be where.

Colour me disappointed. Multi-mon support is a big issue if its not just me.

OSX 10.6.1

Macbook Pro Late 2008 (4GB RAM/256 GB SSD/the dual NVIDIA graphics setup)

0 Kudos
9 Replies
matthewtoney
Contributor
Contributor

WIth overall performance I'm pleased as it does seem better than it was, but I'm running XP and various Windows Server flavors in my VMs so I haven't tried the Aero support yet. (although if it's doing Aero via software then I have no doubt it's gonna be slow - it would be nice to know some more technical details around how they have implemented that)

I don't know about the multi-monitor bit, but I've got a couple of VMs that keep wanting to boot up and start in a different screen resolution than I left them in when I shut them down - weird.

0 Kudos
erikread
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Overall, I'm not very impressed.

I run Windows 2008R2 (64bit) in a VM for 64 bit development purposes.

I have compile scripts that I run regularly. They are taking roughly 8% longer in 3 over 2.

Also, I rebooted my Mac into 64 bit kernel and the same compile script took 70% longer.

The first time I booted into my Windows 2008 VM, it blue-screened so I turned off 3D support.

I might go back to 2.0.6 (I made a backup of my VM before upgrading) for a while.

Macbook Pro 2.4 dual core 4GB RAM.

Erik

0 Kudos
bgertzfield
Commander
Commander

I have compile scripts that I run regularly. They are taking roughly 8% longer in 3 over 2.

One difference you may run into is that VMware Fusion 3 will use unbuffered I/O by default for Windows 2008 R2. For most users, this is appropriate, since buffered I/O takes up way too much memory.

If you have tons and tons of free memory, you can change this in the virtual machine's settings under Advanced -> Other -> Hard disk buffering. That's probably the main thing that would change compilation time for your use-case.

0 Kudos
maxim_porges
Contributor
Contributor

Is anybody running 3.0 on Snow Leopard with XP? Is the performance decent? I've had massive issues with XP performance being terrible in 2.0.6 with Snow Leopard, and so far VMWare hasn't been much help either diagnosing or fixing the issue. I don't want to spent $39.95 to upgrade if it's going to continue to perform badly.

Thanks,

- max

0 Kudos
erikread
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Tried what you suggested. It got me back to 2.0.6 performance. Unfortunately, some errors seem to pop up (file not found errors).

Probably not worth it for a few seconds.

Thanks for the suggestion.

0 Kudos
NineSpot_Soluti
Contributor
Contributor

I just upgraded to VMWare Fusion 3 and am happy to say that everything is working fine. I actually just wanted to drop a note about some of my first impressions regarding Windows and DirectX 9 performance.

I just gave it a spin on my unibody Macbook Pro with a Windows XP bootcamp partition. First of all, the start-up time is drastically improved. It booted up faster than if it were actually running in Boot Camp and when Windows loaded, it was pretty much ready to go. That's big over VMWare 2 where I would usually have to just walk away from it for 5 minutes before it had fully loaded Windows.

After it updated the VMWare Tools and drivers, I wanted to see if gaming was a reasonable expectation with the new DirectX 9 support. In VMWare 2, even old and simple 3d games, like Deus Ex, had pretty bad performance issues, making them unplayable. I set the guest OS to utilize 1 core and 1.5GB of RAM out of my Core2Duo and 4GB of RAM on my host machine. Then I started up TF2. It took it quite a while to load, but it's kinda slow to start up normally, so I just let it do its thing. I ran it at 1024x768 with pretty much everything turned down, then I jumped into a private game. Graphically, it looked perfect, or as perfect as you could expect at low graphics settings. Performance-wise, it was... well... not ideal. I could get decent framerates, but it was punctuated by stutters and hitches pretty frequently. I'd say it's like playing on a decent computer, but with a 400 ping. Barely tolerable if you have a high threshold for slow game performance. I then jumped into a game with 15 players and got slaughtered. So, really not the best for online gaming.

However, I would say that mediocre performance is a huge improvement over no game performance at all and it would probably run perfectly well with older games or single player titles. To test this, I've started up Vampire: Bloodlines, which is an older Half-Life 2 engine game. One interesting thing to note is that the Virtual Machine is capable of rendering at settings higher than what the monitor should be able to support, as it defaulted to 1600x1200 while the monitor's native resolution is 1440x900. The effect of which was that it filled the screen, but everything seemed scaled down in size. I set the game to run at 1280x1024 instead, with most of the graphics settings at their default values, all the way up. Loading into the hub world, the game still has a few hitches, but is much closer to playable and, amazingly, looks just as flawless as it does in Windows. When in smaller areas, the framerate is just about perfect and runs fine even when switching windows to type in Firefox or using Expose.

So, overall, I'm very happy with the update and very impressed with how quickly virtualization technology is advancing. I more frequently use VMWare to test websites I'm working on in different versions of IE, and I've found that even there it's substantially faster just in switching between windows and launching browsers. But to be able to pop into Windows for a quick favorite game during coffee breaks is really a nice treat.

0 Kudos
erikread
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Hate to say it...pretty much gave up. More blue screens in a VMI've never had issues with.

Reinstalled 2.0.6 and now copying over my backup (93 gig).

I guess I'm one of the people looking for more performance as oppsed to new features.

When they release the first patch I might try it again.

I guess I will learn one of these days to try before I buy.

0 Kudos
paulcurtis
Contributor
Contributor

erik,

I'm in a similar boat to you in that fusion is for development work (visual studio). It's on my macbook pro and that's not my main dev machine but i want to be able to work wherever i can. For the life of me i can't find any dev tools that can hold a match, let alone a torch to visual studio, so it has to be VS

However i'm willing to start from scratch with fusion 3 and install cleanly, is this something that you tried as well? In some other threads on here there is the suggestion that some of the new features can only be seen with a fresh install.

In my past experiments i found a huge speed difference between running XP32 under fusion and Windows 7 RTM 64, I'm keen to test that with fusion 3.

cheers

paul

0 Kudos
erikread
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Did not try a fresh install.

I was under the impression that the normal Mac install pretty much just overwrites the current one.

It's just the performance of 3.0 is not there not to mention the blue-screens.

Keep in mind, I don't need the Aero or anything like that. I'll boot into WIN7 in boot camp for that.

This is strictly work.

0 Kudos