VMware Communities
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

Will Parallels and Fusion (2.0b1) still coexist?

I previously had both Parallels and Fusion installed, using Parallels for my 'personal' VM and Fusion to run a copy of my work machine (LONG story for the reasons behind this). The two virtual machines are never run at the same time.

Today I've upgraded Fusion to the latest, and since then I've experienced:

- Parallels suddenly takes a much longer time to start a VM

- I've just had what appeared to be a sort of kernel panic where the entire machine became unresponsive and I had to force a shutdown (only Fusion was running)

- Despite only Fusion running during the above 'panic', there are a load of messages in the log about Parallels similar to the following:

08/05/2008 14:54:50 kernel IPI stat: rescheduled 1 cpus out of 2.

Is there some reason that the two applications can no longer coexist since the latest beta of Fusions? If there is a conflict, is there a way to avoid it (by change of configuration or otherwise)?

Thanks,

Tom

Reply
0 Kudos
19 Replies
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

There is also this mess in the console at the same time at which the system became unresponsive:

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel IGHang

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PRB0_TAIL: 000002a0

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PRB0_HEAD: ade00efc

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PRB0_START: 02120000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PRB0_CTL: 00000003

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PGTBL_CTL: 7ff80001

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PGTBL_ER: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel EXCC: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel HW_MEMRD: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel IPEIR: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel IPEHR: 60020100

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel INSTDONE: ff65fafd

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel INSTPS: 0401f02e

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel ACTHD: 02364578

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel DMA_FADD_P 02364578

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel INSTDONE_1: 000fffdd

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel ********** Dumping INSTDONE Register **********

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel INSTDONE = 0xff65fafd

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel Setup (SE) Done, Windower (WM) Done, Dispatcher (DIP) Done, Projection and LOD (PL) NOT Done, Dependent Address Generator (DG) Done, Quad Cache Controller (QC) Done, Texture Fetch (FT) Done, Texture Decompressor (DM) Done, Sampler Cache (SC) Done, Filter (FL) Done, Bypass FIFO (BY) NOT Done, Pixel Shader (PS) Done, Color Calculator (CC) NOT Done,

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel HWS_PGA: 0c8e2000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PWRCTXA: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel NOPID: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel HWSTAM: fffedfff

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel MI_MODE: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel IER: 00008054

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel IIR: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel IMR: fffe5fab

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel ISR: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel EIR: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel EMR: ffffffcc

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel ESR: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel INSTPM: 00000010

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PGTBL_CTL2: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel PGTBL_STR2: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel MI_DISPLAY_POWER_DOWN: 00008000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel MI_ARB_STATE: 00000040

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel MI_RDRET_STATE: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CACHE_MODE_0: 00006800

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CACHE_MODE_1: 00000180

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel UHPTR: 00000a60

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel BB_ADDR: 0236457b

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel GFX_FLSH_CNTL: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CCID0: 15ac8001

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CTX_SIZE: 00000013

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CTX_SIZE_NOEXT: 0000000f

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel ECOSKPD: 00000317

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CSFLFSM: 00000008

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CSFLFLAG: 00000420

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CSFLTRK: 0000014d

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CSCMDOP: ffffffff

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CSCMDVLD: 00000001

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel TIMESTAMP: 2038bfe0

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel CLKCMP: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel VFDC: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel VFSKPD: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel status[ISR]: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel status[PRB0_HEAD]: ade00ec4

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel status[SRB0_HEAD]: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel status[SRB1_HEAD]: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel status[HWB_HEAD]: 00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel status[STAMP]: 00a18973

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel ********** Dumping SVG Debug Registers **********

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel General state base address = 0x041b0000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel Surface state base address = 0x035bc000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel Indirect object base address = 0x00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel Generate state address upper bound = 0x04251000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel Indirect indirect object access = 0x00000000

08/05/2008 14:52:39 kernel System instruction pointer = 0x00000000

08/05/2008 14:53:47 kernel IPI stat: rescheduled 1 cpus out of 2.

08/05/2008 14:53:53 /usr/libexec/hidd[37] IOHIDEventQueueEnqueue: Error enqueuing memory. (0xe00002e8)

Parallels was not running at the time, though it had been earlier so it's possible that it left certain processes in memory...

Reply
0 Kudos
Pat_Lee
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

Tom,

This is a bug in the Parallels, if we are launched after Parallels, we put up a dialog warning you this could happen and warn you to restart. If launched the other way around, we can't control their bug. It existed in 1.1 and they appeared to add a workaround to their crash special casing 1.x. With the changes in 2.0, it looks they will have to either fix their crashing bug or add another workaround for 2.0 at this point.

Pat

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

Thanks Pat,

So if I understand correctly, if I've restarted OS X and not launched Parallels (ie. running only Fusion) the bug shouldn't occur?

Thanks,

Tom

Reply
0 Kudos
Pat_Lee
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

So if I understand correctly, if I've restarted OS X and not launched Parallels (ie. running only Fusion) the bug shouldn't occur?

From our understanding of the issue, yes, but your mileage may vary.

Pat

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

There is a known problem with 2.0b1 and the current version of Parallels - it's a bug in their kexts. However, this should only hit if you're running both Fusion and Parallels at the same time, so I don't think that's what you're seeing.

Both Fusion and Parallels use kexts, which are loaded at startup. So even though you might not be explicitly running Parallels (or conversely Fusion), there is still the possibility of incompatibility with the other program. I would ask them about the message, since it's not clear why they would need to reschedule if they're not running.

Nitpick: a kernel panic causes the multilingual screen of death. Even though the effect to you may be the same as a freeze or system hang (have to hard reset the computer), from a technical perspective it's different, so it's important for developers to know whether you're really seeing a kernel panic or not.

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

Thanks for the quick responses guys.

Regarding the 'panic' that's why I've described it as above - it's not a true kernel panic, but functionally very similar as the machine is unresponsive (even to Cmd-Option-Esc) and the only choice is to foce it off.

I have to admit I've been back and forth between Parallels and Fusion more times than I can count since Fusion came out. The main reasons (if you're interested):

- Parallels, in my testing, consistently used less processor than Fusion when running the same tasks. Testing this against the new Fusion beta, the difference now appears negligible (1-2% in general, though clearly it's difficult to make an accurate comparison)

- The Parallels application itself occupies only 24mb space, where Fusion occupies 135mb. Though this isn't necessarily a reason to use Parallels, it does matter as in my case I'm on a Macbook Air with limited space (SSD) and need to save wherever I can. Is there some reason for the massive difference?

- In contrast to the above, Parallels has never been able to run my imported office VM even though it works perfectly in Fusion.

- Coherence, in daily use, seems to perform better and with fewer 'quirks' than Unity. That said, I began having problems with Coherence a few months ago and ultimately had to disable it. Parallels has yet to offer a fix of any sort and, though they acknowledge the issues, appear no closer to a resolution than when the issue was identified.

- Launching Windows applications feels easier in Parallels. I think this is mainly because you can click the dock icon and directly access the Windows start menu. With Fusion you have to first activate Fusion then use the menu bar, or right-click the dock icon and navigate the cascading menu (which I find irritating). I'd much prefer to just be able to get to Windows start menu from the dock icon. (If I've overlooked an easier way please let me know!)

- Shared folders functionality is dramatically more stable in Parallels (and yes, I know the Fusion team are working on it, but I've mentioned it for completeness)

- Support, particularly in the forums, seems much better with Fusion. Parallels only seem to respond to forums when they 'want' to or it suits them, and when I've raised support issues with Parallels it often takes dozens of exchanged emails to get anywhere (and in one case they've just failed to resolve the issue altogether, saying 'Parallels does some things better than Fusion, and Fusion does some things better than Parallels'.... duh!)

Anyway thanks for the responsiveness, and for the moment Fusion is winning! Smiley Wink If you can take on board any of the above, all the better.

Thanks,

Tom

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

- The Parallels application itself occupies only 24mb space, where Fusion occupies 135mb. Though this isn't necessarily a reason to use Parallels, it does matter as in my case I'm on a Macbook Air with limited space (SSD) and need to save wherever I can. Is there some reason for the massive difference?

Yes - Tools. The majority of the space Fusion takes up is due to Tools for various guest operating systems, and the majority of that is pre-built modules for the Linux variants we support. If you never use them, you could delete the unused Tools images from /Library/Application Support/VMware Fusion/isoimages

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

Thanks - that's helpful, but I was actually referring just to the respective applications. I haven't even factored in the files stored elsewhere!

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

On a related note, is it safe to use XSlimmer or Trimmit on the Fusion app to get rid of any PPC code (is there any PPC code??)

Thanks,

Tom

Reply
0 Kudos
WoodyZ
Immortal
Immortal

The Parallels application itself occupies only 24mb space, where Fusion occupies 135mb. Though this isn't necessarily a reason to use Parallels, it does matter as in my case I'm on a Macbook Air with limited space (SSD) and need to save wherever I can. Is there some reason for the massive difference?

I'm not sure how you're calculating the amount of space that Parallels uses but your figure is wrong. The DMG Download is 88 MB and while not all of that is the actual application the 88 MB is compressed and expands considerably. BTW both Parallels an Fusion place file necessary to function in places other then the Applications folder so just checking the size in Applications doesn't count it all.

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

Thanks - as I've said above, comparing ONLY the applications themselves (ie. that which appears in the Applications folder), my Parallels is 24mb vs. Fusion at 135.5mb. Looking at the amount of stuff in /Library it appears Fusion actually consumes many times that (though obviously some of it can be deleted as per email above).

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

I should add, I've reduced Parallels a bit using Trimmit (though it was definitely smaller even before removing the PPC code). I can't find any files to support Parallels in \Library or ~\Library, so if they exist I'm not sure where they've hidden them!

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

The majority of the space taken up by /Applications/VMware Fusion.app is due to the helper virtual machine "naos", which is used for the initial configuration of Boot Camp virtual machines. If you don't use this, you can delete it. It's possible Parallels keeps their equivalent somewhere else, or uses a different mechanism.

I don't think there's any PPC code in Fusion, but you could try Trimmit anyway.

Edited to remove question for Woody, I misread the dmg source

Reply
0 Kudos
WoodyZ
Immortal
Immortal

/Applications/Parallels 40.8 MB

/Library/Parallels 41.5 MB

/Library/StartupItems/Parallels 132 KB

/System/Library/Extensions 365 KB

Message was edited by: WoodyZ

Those are figures for build 3188 and the latest is much larger.

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

There are some files in \Library\Parallels and ~\Library\Parallels but they appear negligible in terms of size.

I'll probably take your advice and delete that file as well, as I'm not running and have no intention of using Boot Camp for the time being. If I ever do, presumably a reinstall of Fusion will restore all of that.

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

Which further supports my original point - Parallels footprint is significantly smaller than Fusion. I'm not making any judgements about size vs. functionality, just stating a fact.

Reply
0 Kudos
WoodyZ
Immortal
Immortal

Which further supports my original point - Parallels footprint is significantly smaller than Fusion. I'm not making any judgements about size vs. functionality, just stating a fact.

I do not disagree with the premiss of your original point however the math was flawed and you can't really do an apples to apples comparison because both are not packaged with the same components and as noted by Eric some of what is installed with Fusion can be removed if not needed by your individual needs.

Frankly if 50 ~ 100 MB is that critical maybe the MacBook Air wasn't a good choice to make in the first place. Smiley Happy

Reply
0 Kudos
twynne
Contributor
Contributor

The numbers may not match on our installations, but you must admit there is a difference between the two - and whilst you may be able to selectively delete bits without breaking anything, your average user isn't generally comfortable doing so.

As I've said in the original post (pros and cons), in itself it's not a reason not to choose Fusion.

Finally, in support of the Air, it's a brilliant machine but as with most things there is a tradeoff. Smiley Happy The point is, unnecessary 'fluff' needs to be avoided where possible.

Reply
0 Kudos
WoodyZ
Immortal
Immortal

Finally, in support of the Air, it's a brilliant machine but as with most things there is a tradeoff. Smiley Happy The point is, unnecessary 'fluff' needs to be avoided where possible.

No disagreement there! Smiley Happy

Reply
0 Kudos