 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OTOH, last time I tried to set up a virtual machine, it took two days
>> just to install Windows XP and update to service pack 3. That's quite
>> absurdly slow...
>
> You need better hardware. It should never take that much time to install
> an OS - in my VMs, it never took that long....
>
> What specs on the machine (including host OS)?
From memory, it was a 4 GHz Pentium IV with 512 MB RAM, running QEMU.
(The laptops I'm looking at using are this spec or worse.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:19:06 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> OTOH, last time I tried to set up a virtual machine, it took two days
>>> just to install Windows XP and update to service pack 3. That's quite
>>> absurdly slow...
>>
>> You need better hardware. It should never take that much time to
>> install an OS - in my VMs, it never took that long....
>>
>> What specs on the machine (including host OS)?
>
> From memory, it was a 4 GHz Pentium IV with 512 MB RAM, running QEMU.
>
> (The laptops I'm looking at using are this spec or worse.)
Memory would be the issue here, no wonder it took forever to install, it
was probably swapping fiercely.
For good virtualization, you really need to have at least 1 or 2 GB of
memory. Insufficient host memory can lead to serious performance
problems.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> OTOH, last time I tried to set up a virtual machine, it took two days
>>>> just to install Windows XP and update to service pack 3. That's quite
>>>> absurdly slow...
>>> You need better hardware. It should never take that much time to
>>> install an OS - in my VMs, it never took that long....
>>>
>>> What specs on the machine (including host OS)?
>> From memory, it was a 4 GHz Pentium IV with 512 MB RAM, running QEMU.
>>
>> (The laptops I'm looking at using are this spec or worse.)
>
> Memory would be the issue here, no wonder it took forever to install, it
> was probably swapping fiercely.
>
> For good virtualization, you really need to have at least 1 or 2 GB of
> memory. Insufficient host memory can lead to serious performance
> problems.
It didn't seem to be swapping *at all*. Hardly any HD activity. Just
100% CPU, constantly.
I've heard people claim that the problem is QEMU - which is a user-mode
hardware emulator rather than a virtualisation program that runs most
code natively... but having never seen any other VM product, I don't
know if it makes much difference.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:13:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> OTOH, last time I tried to set up a virtual machine, it took two
>>>>> days just to install Windows XP and update to service pack 3. That's
>>>>> quite absurdly slow...
>>>> You need better hardware. It should never take that much time to
>>>> install an OS - in my VMs, it never took that long....
>>>>
>>>> What specs on the machine (including host OS)?
>>> From memory, it was a 4 GHz Pentium IV with 512 MB RAM, running QEMU.
>>>
>>> (The laptops I'm looking at using are this spec or worse.)
>>
>> Memory would be the issue here, no wonder it took forever to install,
>> it was probably swapping fiercely.
>>
>> For good virtualization, you really need to have at least 1 or 2 GB of
>> memory. Insufficient host memory can lead to serious performance
>> problems.
>
> It didn't seem to be swapping *at all*. Hardly any HD activity. Just
> 100% CPU, constantly.
If for some reason the guest OS isn't relinquishing control to the host
(which can happen), that also would explain it. But if your host OS
requires 256 MB to run and the guest requires 256 MB to run, there's no
memory left for the actual virtualization software, so it has to get
memory from somewhere.
512 MB is a fairly low spec for any system doing virtualization,
regardless of the software. My bet is still on memory.
> I've heard people claim that the problem is QEMU - which is a user-mode
> hardware emulator rather than a virtualisation program that runs most
> code natively... but having never seen any other VM product, I don't
> know if it makes much difference.
Grab VMware Server from http://www.vmware.com - it's free. Not quite as
easy to use as VMware Workstation, but WS is a pay-for product.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> We have some equipment in our lab. It needs a computer to control it.
> Unfortunately, the control software requires somebody to be logged in. As
> soon as you log out, it quits the control program, halting the machine.
Can't you just lock the machine instead of logging off?
> Except that the control software stubbornly, repeatedly *refuses* to
> believe me that the USB serial port actually exists. Every other piece of
> software I've tried can access it without issue. But not the one piece of
> software that we *need* to access it. No sir. Not interested. It can "see"
> the port, but it refuses to *select* that port. And nothing I've done so
> far seems to convince it to work.
OOC what COM port number is assigned to the USB COM port? If it's higher
than 4 then you might try changing it to 4 or below (you can usually do it
from device manager under the properties of the USB-COM adapter). Some
older programs don't like working with things like COM7 which those USB
converters typically come up as.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> We have some equipment in our lab. It needs a computer to control it.
>> Unfortunately, the control software requires somebody to be logged in.
>> As soon as you log out, it quits the control program, halting the
>> machine.
>
> Can't you just lock the machine instead of logging off?
The issue being that it is then impossible for anyone except the person
logged on to discover if the machine is still running OK, how far it's
got, etc.
If we used the other software, this problem would be 100% solved. The
other software runs as a service, multiple people can access it, you can
set up access controls and auditing... the whole nine yards. But the
people at the top can't be bothered to put in the effort to test it, so
we can't use it.
>> Except that the control software stubbornly, repeatedly *refuses* to
>> believe me that the USB serial port actually exists. Every other piece
>> of software I've tried can access it without issue. But not the one
>> piece of software that we *need* to access it. No sir. Not interested.
>> It can "see" the port, but it refuses to *select* that port. And
>> nothing I've done so far seems to convince it to work.
>
> OOC what COM port number is assigned to the USB COM port? If it's
> higher than 4 then you might try changing it to 4 or below (you can
> usually do it from device manager under the properties of the USB-COM
> adapter). Some older programs don't like working with things like COM7
> which those USB converters typically come up as.
Defaults to COM3. I've tried changing it to COM2 also. (COM1 is the
built-in modem.)
However, today I obtained the latest version of the control software,
and it now works perfectly with the USB adaptor. Go figure...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> We have some equipment in our lab. It needs a computer to control it.
>>> Unfortunately, the control software requires somebody to be logged in.
>>> As soon as you log out, it quits the control program, halting the
>>> machine.
>>
>> Can't you just lock the machine instead of logging off?
>
> The issue being that it is then impossible for anyone except the person
> logged on to discover if the machine is still running OK, how far it's
> got, etc.
Set up a "lab" user or some such that everyone knows the login for, we have
that here to solve exactly that problem with our temperature logging
software. OOC, are normal applications required to carry on running if the
user who started them logs off? I have no idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Can't you just lock the machine instead of logging off?
>>
>> The issue being that it is then impossible for anyone except the
>> person logged on to discover if the machine is still running OK, how
>> far it's got, etc.
>
> Set up a "lab" user or some such that everyone knows the login for
Then the *other* piece of software running on the computer wouldn't be
able to log audit events under the correct username.
> OOC, are normal applications required to carry on
> running if the user who started them logs off? I have no idea.
Under Windows, any processes started by a user ordinarily get terminated
when that user logs off. Unless they do something special to prevent this...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Then the *other* piece of software running on the computer wouldn't be
> able to log audit events under the correct username.
Why not? If it can log them under the correct username when nobody is
logged on, why shouldn't it be able to do it when someone else is logged on?
> Under Windows, any processes started by a user ordinarily get terminated
> when that user logs off. Unless they do something special to prevent
> this...
Like what? Do most programs cope OK with running when nobody is logged on?
I would have thought some get a bit screwed up what with there being no
desktop or whatever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Then the *other* piece of software running on the computer wouldn't be
>> able to log audit events under the correct username.
>
> Why not? If it can log them under the correct username when nobody is
> logged on, why shouldn't it be able to do it when someone else is logged
> on?
The program continues to run with nobody logged on, and continues to
execute any instructions it has been given. However, to give it
instructions, you have to log on, and it records the username of the
person giving the instructions. If we had a single logon, there would be
no record of who issued those instructions.
>> Under Windows, any processes started by a user ordinarily get
>> terminated when that user logs off. Unless they do something special
>> to prevent this...
>
> Like what? Do most programs cope OK with running when nobody is logged
> on? I would have thought some get a bit screwed up what with there being
> no desktop or whatever.
No, I meant unless the *program* does something special to tell the OS
it wants to keep running.
It sounds like the guys at HQ are looking at trying to run our problem
software as a service somehow... We'll see if they can actually get it
to work. (I rather suspect not.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
