From: morfic <mo...@bb...> - 2004-04-24 02:16:34
|
John Nelson wrote: >> >> > There is a slight speed advantage with a partition... when you are > using a mounted image, you are reading a file system that exists > *within* another file system. This additional level adds overhead, so > a partition is a bit faster, albeit marginally. On the other hand, an > image file has significantly greater flexibility, as you can make new > "test" versions at will, keep old copies around, and so forth. I tend > to prefer the image approach since I seriously doubt that the slight > added speed of a real partition could possibly outweigh the problems > created by its inherent lack of flexibiity, especially when one > considers that you just might want to jumble images around every now > and then. > > you must not have benchmarked an image vs partition when you run an image you benefit from windows caching on top of linux' caching? don't believe me? run bonnie, bonnie++ or tiobench, but with memory settings at least 2x the amount the host machine has physical ram (bonnie suggests that) if you pick only twice the memory of the colinux guest you are getting higher results than when using twice the amount of the host, which shows thew effects of caching of the host now run the tests with memory settings of twice the guest and twice the host but on a physical partition, you will find those two results not only to be significantly lower than those of the images, but also you will see not much difference if using 2x guest ram or 2x host ram, which will show you that host caching doesnt happen here try it, you might be surprised, certainly you wont find what i said to be wrong :) |