 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Our VMware "expert" claims that pre-allowating the HD image can result
> in reduced load on the HD subsystem (obviously at the expense of more
> disk space eaten).
Probably.
> Given that the main disk image is 1.5GB but the snapshots are only 300MB
> each, I figured it was doing some sort of compression.
No, it's just keeping a list of sectors you've ever written anything to.
> Oh, definitely. And that's why I was hoping that the VMware Tools might
> include a tool to zero unused sectors. But apparently not...
Linux does. I don't know of anything in vmware to deallocate sectors, even
if they're all zeros.
> Ooo, hey. Crazy idea: I could set up my VM how I want, and then boot
> from the Ghost boot CD and take a Ghost image! It only copies used
> sectors, and has compression built-in.
That would probably work, yes.
> More annoyingly, to get VMware Player they demand that you register an
> account using a real name, etc.
Why is that a problem?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Given that the main disk image is 1.5GB but the snapshots are only
>> 300MB each, I figured it was doing some sort of compression.
>
> No, it's just keeping a list of sectors you've ever written anything to.
I assumed that's what the main image file was doing also.
>> Oh, definitely. And that's why I was hoping that the VMware Tools
>> might include a tool to zero unused sectors. But apparently not...
>
> Linux does. I don't know of anything in vmware to deallocate sectors,
> even if they're all zeros.
Linux has a way to zero unused disk blocks?
(I'm not surprised that this doesn't make VMware release those blocks,
however... Should make the file more compressible though.)
>> More annoyingly, to get VMware Player they demand that you register an
>> account using a real name, etc.
>
> Why is that a problem?
I dislike having to "register" to get my hands on supposedly "free"
software.
In my mind, "free" software is software that you can use anywhere you
want. But from the looks of this, the software has to be "activated". So
even though it's "free", you can only have it on a single computer, and
so on. And you have a serial number to not lose, and... it's just more
hassel.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Given that the main disk image is 1.5GB but the snapshots are only
>>> 300MB each, I figured it was doing some sort of compression.
>>
>> No, it's just keeping a list of sectors you've ever written anything to.
>
> I assumed that's what the main image file was doing also.
It depends how you configure things.
> Linux has a way to zero unused disk blocks?
dd if=/dev/zero of=/xyzzy bs=1M count=... ; rm /xyzzy
> (I'm not surprised that this doesn't make VMware release those blocks,
> however... Should make the file more compressible though.)
It does.
> I dislike having to "register" to get my hands on supposedly "free"
> software.
There's an easy cure for that. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Linux has a way to zero unused disk blocks?
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/xyzzy bs=1M count=... ; rm /xyzzy
There is a Windows program that uses just that technique.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/11/2009 5:02 AM, Invisible wrote:
> My only experience of VM technology so far has been with a freeware
> program called QEMU. (I also briefly touched BOCHS, but never really
> used it much.)
Andrew, you should check out Virtual Box, too:
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Sun's offering of a VM. It comes in an OpenSource and binary flavor, and
can run on a variety of host systems. I've used it several times, and it
works nicely, and seems to run at a decent clip.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:02:35 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> OK, time to go check out the thing I actually came to test... ;-)
Can i say "I told you so"? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:27:53 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> One thing I've noticed is that VMs take a surprisingly small amount of
> disk space. I mean, I give each VM an 8GB virtual disk, but I'm using
> nowhere near 8GB per VM. More like 2GB. Which is still a lot, but it's
> an 80GB disk that's 79% free...
Disk that's not allocated in the VM takes no space - unless it previously
held deleted files. That's what the "shrink disk" option does - zeros
out unused sectors in the VM's disk and removes them from the disk file.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:45:39 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> The other thing people use snapshots for is so they can either try
> something that might break things, or to make the vdisk back-up-able
> while it's running.
I use it for having a "known good" state for my Windows VMs - that way,
if things get hopelessly screwed up, I can go back to a state where
things are known to be working.
I usually apply patches/updates (antivirus and the like), reboot, let it
run for a little bit to see if there are any issues, and then merge the
snapshot in with the base, shrink, and then take a new snap.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:08:46 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Our VMware "expert" claims that pre-allowating the HD image can result
> in reduced load on the HD subsystem (obviously at the expense of more
> disk space eaten).
Yep, that's true.
>> You're aware that Vista and later comes with a free (but incompatible
>> with VMWare) VM system, right? See if you have a program called
>> "virtual PC" around.
>
> I hear that Windows 2003 Server (?) comes with a "hypervisor" which runs
> on the real metal, and then 2003 itself actually runs as a
> paravirtualised guest. Or something like that...
It can as long as the system hosting supports the right virtualization
technology.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:31:25 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> Oh, definitely. And that's why I was hoping that the VMware Tools might
>> include a tool to zero unused sectors. But apparently not...
>
> Linux does. I don't know of anything in vmware to deallocate sectors,
> even if they're all zeros.
VMware tools' shrink functionality zeros the unused sectors out before
shrinking it. The Linux VMware tools do as well, for that matter.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
