Windows XP Activation Concern: Growable vs. Preallocated Virtual Disk?

[DigitalDude]

Hi, I'm currently running a not-yet-activated VM of WinXP. Currently, the VM is configured with preallocated space of 8GB, split into 2GB files. Before I activate the OS, I want to make sure I avoid any Windows Activation problems. (My last reactivation was on a booted partition and the most frustrating experience I ever had with Windows Customer Support.)

It's highly likely I will need more than 8GB of space for the VM. On one hand, I hate to dedicate a large amount of never-to-be-used space to a big preallocated VM. For that reason, I'm tempted to convert it to a growable VM. On the other hand, I'm uncertain of the potential for a growable VM to trigger reactivation, as well as the decrease in performance compared to a preallocated space. Such a dilemma...

- Will increasing a preallocated VM to a larger virtual disk trigger Windows Reactivation?

- Using 2GB files, does a growable VM increase its size 2 GB at a time; or does it simply increase the size of the current file until it reaches 2GB, then open another file? (My guess is, if the former is true, the performance hit might not be that bad - especially if data files are stored in a shared folder on the host.)

- As a growable VM gets larger, will it trigger reactivation?

- What is the performance difference between growable vs. preallocated virtual disk space?

- What is the best practice for configuring a WinXP VM, to minimize the threat of Windows Reactivation?

Thanks for you help!

[Liz]

Hm, growable isnt growable in the sense of if you tell the vm it has an 8gb disk, it will only ever be a max of 8gb, all the growable means is if the disk only has a minimial copy of DOS on it, the fisk size would be a couple of meg not 8gb (or 4x2gb chunks).

If you really think you're gonna need more than 8 you have 3 choices. 1, volume mounting, 2 redo with a bigger disk defined to growable now (so maybe say 20gb) 3, change the disk size later using the dos command and a partition manager. The last is more likely to require reactivation than the first 2.. The second deffinately not.

[DigitalDude]

"Hm, growable isnt growable in the sense of if you tell the vm it has an 8gb disk, it will only ever be a max of 8gb, all the growable means is if the disk only has a minimial copy of DOS on it, the fisk size would be a couple of meg not 8gb (or 4x2gb chunks).

If you really think you're gonna need more than 8 you have 3 choices. 1, volume mounting, 2 redo with a bigger disk defined to growable now (so maybe say 20gb) 3, change the disk size later using the dos command and a partition manager. The last is more likely to require reactivation than the first 2.. The second deffinately not."

Hi and thanks for your reply. I understand how a growable virtual disk only takes up as much space it needs, up to the specified size. Not having read anything to the contrary, I can only assume this is still the case, when using 2GB files. So, in either configuration, disk writing performance would have to suffer, as compared to a preallocated disk. If a growable disk grew in 2GB increments (configured with 2GB files), however, performance would only suffer when VMware had to write another 2GB file. Alas, I can't find any information on the VMware KB or Communities that fully explains this.

I'd sure like to get an idea of the performance hit of a growable disk vs a preallocated. VMware's documentation only states that a preallocated disk gives somewhat better performance, but doesn't elaborate. Growable disks are certainly more convenient, but at what performance cost?

I also assume a growable disk doesn't cause problems with Windows Reactivation. Otherwise, there'd be alot more posts discussing this as a problem.

Yeah, I'm definitely going to increase the size of the disk, right now. By "redo", assume you mean to use VMware Virtual Disk Manager. I sure don't want to go through another install of the OS!

I guess it comes down to a growable vs. preallocated disk. In this regard, I'd still like to hear what the VMware Communities have decided is the best practice for configuring a WinXP VM. For my purpose, I suspect I'll be going with a large, preallocated virtual disk.

Thanks again!

[Liz]

performance seriously depends on your own machinery, hence vmware dont publish specific comparisons, as if it were faster than various customers they would no doubt be accused of using "specific kit" to influence the results..

How the disk chunks work Im not 100% certain, however, Im imagining its a lot like a cascading fall of pots of water, it fills to 2gb, and then overflows, in doing that files can end up split over multiple files, involving multiple maps of files and slowing it down.. Ive certainly found preallocated much faster, I used to use growable to save space, but, the difference is noticable IMHO.

When I said redo, it was one of 3 options and that option was for reinstall windows before activation.. option 3 was use disk manager and a partition tool to expand thte disk.

[DigitalDude]

Thanks. Yeah, I figured preallocated would be faster. I'm also going to abandon 2GB files. My host is WinXP and I image to hard disk, anyway. I've decided to resize and convert my not-yet-activated, clean-but-updated, WinXP installation to a 40GB, growable, single file VM and use it as a base to clone a preallocated Work VM. Since I'm slowly migrating to Linux and all my data is maintained in a separate partition, I don't thing I'll ever need more than 40GB for the Work-WinXP VM.