Macbook Pro Not Handling Vmware Well?

[bigjobby]

Mac OS X: Reading system memory usage in Activity Monitor

Mac OS X: Reading system memory usage in Activity Monitor

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1342

 

[Josh.C.123]

That looks pretty standard. Nothing to worry about.

Here's mine with a 8GB RAM MBP, with a 1GB Win 7 VM and a 512MB Linux VM running.

By the way, VMWare doesn't release RAM immediately. It writes the VM in the background and can take a couple minutes to completely shut down.

with the 1gb virtual machine running. although plenty on inactive ram osx becomes laggy just using safari?

 

[plinden]

I think you're just as likely having problems because of the 5400rpm HDD.

I had a 2.4GHz MBP before this one (a loaner from work) with 9400M GPU, 4GB RAM and 5400rpm HDD, and yes, it definitely felt more sluggish while running the VMs - but I was using lots of software dev tools (Resin running a couple of Java webapps, Apache, Eclipse, Oracle, multiple web browsers). I ended up reducing the Win7 VM to 512MB RAM. The VM's speed was acceptable for what I was doing, testing my webapps, but much slower than with the 1GB I assigned once I moved to this Mac.

The 8GB MBP I have now is much better, but I'm not sure if more of the improvement is due to the 7200rpm HDD, faster CPU, discrete GPU or more RAM.

Edit: But really, I don't think you're having problems due to RAM.

 

[Josh.C.123]

I think you're just as likely having problems because of the 5400rpm HDD.

I had a 2.4GHz MBP before this one (a loaner from work) with 9400M GPU, 4GB RAM and 5400rpm HDD, and yes, it definitely felt more sluggish while running the VMs - but I was using lots of software dev tools (Resin running a couple of Java webapps, Apache, Eclipse, Oracle, multiple web browsers). I ended up reducing the Win7 VM to 512MB RAM. The VM's speed was acceptable for what I was doing, testing my webapps, but much slower than with the 1GB I assigned once I moved to this Mac.

The 8GB MBP I have now is much better, but I'm not sure if more of the improvement is due to the 7200rpm HDD, faster CPU, discrete GPU or more RAM.

Edit: But really, I don't think you're having problems due to RAM.

thats fine then, its just it got very laggy even typing was annoying. thanks for the info now just waiting for ssd prices to half over night

 

[Josh.C.123]

thats fine then, its just it got very laggy even typing was annoying. thanks for the info now just waiting for ssd prices to half over night

i just tried installing an old old game i found to see if it at least worked, and it wont bloody start despite minimum specs being 256 mb ram. is this more likely to be virtualisation issues? for gaming do i really need bootcamp... its just the idea of getting windows viruses again...

 

[xi mezmerize ix]

i just tried installing an old old game i found to see if it at least worked, and it wont bloody start despite minimum specs being 256 mb ram. is this more likely to be virtualisation issues? for gaming do i really need bootcamp... its just the idea of getting windows viruses again...

Gaming in a vm is trying to teach paris hilton math. its never gonna go well.

 

[Josh.C.123]

Gaming in a vm is trying to teach paris hilton math. its never gonna go well.

haha that made me laugh ah well looks like ill try bootcamp. thanks all. screw virtualisation

 

[xi mezmerize ix]

haha that made me laugh ah well looks like ill try bootcamp. thanks all. screw virtualisation

virtualization is good for almost anything except games and music/video editing, but the latter is better in os x anyway. Just use bootcamp for intensive tasks that require full hardware attention.

 

[rasmusDoh]

Both when running VMs (my Win 7 have felt slow too) but also more in general; do the system feel noticeably less sluggish with a 7200 RPM hard drive? I thought the difference was minimal, but i might be wrong? Actually kinda hope i'm wrong since upgrading from a 5400 should then decrease annoying "wait time".
So, how much of an speed increase in everyday stuff have you guys noticed, when upgrading to a 7200?

 

[SurferMan]

I use Virtualbox with 2gb dedicated to it (has 4gb of ram) with win7 and it runs perfect but I only use it for trading program and few other things, I can be doing stuff in os/x and have metatrader open and browser etc in win7 and no slowdown.

 

[dyn]

I am running WIndows 7 Standard, 1.5 GB Allocated and 2 Cores allocated.
But the memory for some reason reaches up to 26mb left?

The MBP has 1 physical cpu with 2 physical cores which only allows you to assign 1 virtual cpu to a vm. You can assign more but you will run into lots of performance problems. Your problem does not seem to be caused by memory usage but by cpu usage. Assign 1 virtual cpu to the vm and your problems will most likely vanish. Check the help for more information about assigning virtual cpu's, it gives you some pointers about when to use it.

The most optimal settings for Win7 in Fusion would be 1 virtual cpu and 1 GB of memory. If you assign 1.5 or 2 GB of memory this will work fine as well though.

The 4 GB of memory and the 5400 rpm disk will do fine with just 1 vm running Win7. If you want to run more than 1 vm you'll need to upgrade to a faster drive (something like a ssd) and maybe a bit more memory.

 

[DoFoT9]

By the way, VMWare doesn't release RAM immediately. It writes the VM to disk in the background and can take a couple minutes to completely shut down.

the RAM will stay inactive until the OS decides to allocate it anywhere else. VMWare doesnt really have any say about it.

the inactive RAM can stay there for a few hours, but is clearly inactive meaning that other processes can take chunks of it away

 

[mikeo007]

Hey guys,

I have been using Vmware just for some MS Office stuff, and the i7 processor runs it fine it doesnt get hot, fans arent running too loud but after looking at the memory info it seems there is none left? OSX also becomes laggy too.

I am running WIndows 7 Standard, 1.5 GB Allocated and 2 Cores allocated.
But the memory for some reason reaches up to 26mb left?

I have 4GB Standard, is this just common when virtualising as the wired ram reaches 2.5 GB and i thought wired ram was just ram allocated to osx?

thanks

This may be your problem, you've dedicated your entire processor to the VM.

 

[DoFoT9]

This may be your problem, you've dedicated your entire processor to the VM.

no i dont think thats possible. i think its done 2 threads

 

[mikeo007]

no i dont think thats possible. i think its done 2 threads

Yes, but I don't think VMware is capable of using hyperthreading, so it has to virtualize the second core, causing a big performance hit.

 

[DoFoT9]

Yes, but I don't think VMware is capable of using hyperthreading, so it has to virtualize the second core, causing a big performance hit.

I am 95% sure that the latest version of VMware can utilize hyper threading natively. I think.. Lol. I dont use it so I can check

 

[Tarrant64]

Just my 2 cents after going through this thread. With VMWare in general there is a best practice when it comes to how many virtual cores you assign to your VM. If you have a dual-core you should only assign 1 vCPU - and in many times this results in better performance.

If you had a quad-core you should be able to be alright with 2vCPU, however again many times 1vCPU is enough most of the time and you see better performance. I actually had issues with Windows XP and went from 2vCPU to 1vCPU and a lot of those problems went away. With virtual machines you have to really think about the applications and what they are geared to in terms of performance. Are you running something that's heavily multi-threaded and relies on more than one cpu? Then give it 2vCPU. If it's a single-threaded app only, stick with the 1vCPU.

I think this generally goes across all VMWare products, Fusion, Workstation, ESX/ESXi. As always though, some results will vary, but it is true and stated in many places, included VMWare support, that 1vCPU in a VM should be adequate and improve performance.

 

[plinden]

the RAM will stay inactive until the OS decides to allocate it anywhere else. VMWare doesnt really have any say about it

Actually, no, I'm not talking about inactive RAM. When you close down VMWare, it takes a definite period (I've seen it take several minutes) to write the VM to disk. VMWare appears to have quit, but if you look at Activity Monitor, you'll see any VM-related processes continue to run, eventually freeing up RAM (ie moving to inactive) once they've completed the write process.

 

[Jaro65]

Just FYI, my 2009 17" MBP has 8GB RAM and an SSD. I run Win 7 in unity mode through VMware Fusion, mostly to use MS Office 2007/2010. The VM performance is very responsive (I give it 2GB of RAM). It feels like I'm running a native Win box here.

 

[MattMJB0188]

Any of you who installed Parallels or VM Fusion experience slow OS X boot times? I am using an Intel X25 M G@ 160gb SSD and every time I use a virtual machine program my boot time only in OS X increases along with bootcamp?

 

[DoFoT9]

Actually, no, I'm not talking about inactive RAM. When you close down VMWare, it takes a definite period (I've seen it take several minutes) to write the VM to disk. VMWare appears to have quit, but if you look at Activity Monitor, you'll see any VM-related processes continue to run, eventually freeing up RAM (ie moving to inactive) once they've completed the write process.

Had you checked the disk activity part to see what read/writes were happening to the drive? I'm not familiar with vmware, on parallels and parallels saves everything before you quit the program. nice to compare.

 

[djasterix]

I don't have an SSD, and those readings look standart, these are my readings running a 1Gb windows 7 VM, and safary and Chrome running

 

[dyn]

I am 95% sure that the latest version of VMware can utilize hyper threading natively. I think.. Lol. I dont use it so I can check

I'm 100% sure it doesn't. VMware doesn't know what hyperthreading does to their virtualisation stuff, they are investigating it. Hyperthreading is not using the entire core, it's using whatever isn't used. In some cases threads can run on it and in some cases it can't. It's a simulation of 4 cores, they are not real. They have to look at what Fusion is doing exactly and what could benefit from hyperthreading.

They also do not recommend you assigning more then 1 virtual cpu if you have 2 physical cores, it's even in the help file. On the official forum you can find some people who neglected that advice and assigned 2 virtual cpu's anyway. They all had big performance problems and were complaining about the exact same things as the thread starter.

 

[DoFoT9]

I'm 100% sure it doesn't. VMware doesn't know what hyperthreading does to their virtualisation stuff, they are investigating it. Hyperthreading is not using the entire core, it's using whatever isn't used. In some cases threads can run on it and in some cases it can't. It's a simulation of 4 cores, they are not real. They have to look at what Fusion is doing exactly and what could benefit from hyperthreading.

They also do not recommend you assigning more then 1 virtual cpu if you have 2 physical cores, it's even in the help file. On the official forum you can find some people who neglected that advice and assigned 2 virtual cpu's anyway. They all had big performance problems and were complaining about the exact same things as the thread starter.

simulation? odd word to use, but i see your point(s). i guess i didnt make my point clear enough - i meant that they could see the hyperthreaded cores from the host OS side of things, not in the actual virtualised environment. see the screen shot below, it sees all 8 threads from my i7 machine but in the virtualised OS yea it will only see "cores".

 

[dyn]

simulation? odd word to use, but i see your point(s). i guess i didnt make my point clear enough - i meant that they could see the hyperthreaded cores from the host OS side of things, not in the actual virtualised environment. see the screen shot below, it sees all 8 threads from my i7 machine but in the virtualised OS yea it will only see "cores".

Hate to burst your bubble but those most definitely are not your cores. You can't see any of the cores in Fusion nor Parallels What you're seeing are the number of virtual cpu's you can assign to a vm (the vm only sees virtualised cpu's, they are not real). Fusion 3.x supports up to 8 of those, Fusion 2.x only 4.

It's a misconception that virtual cpu's are the same thing as physical cores/cpu's. They are not!

Please read the following official VMware document: Choosing the Right Virtual Machine Settings. This document gives you some pointers for assigning memory and virtual cpu's as well as explain what virtual cpu's are. They give the following advice: "use it if you know you need it, but otherwise leave it alone". I'd like to add the following: if you do not have a quad core iMac, Mac Pro or Xserve, don't assign more then 1 virtual cpu.

Btw: I used the word "simulation" because that's exactly what hyperthreading does: it makes the OS believe it's a physical core while in fact it isn't. Sometimes cores don't get used entirely. The parts that aren't used are being used by hyperthreading to make them look like they are another core (it simulates a proper core, hence my choice for "simulation"). The problem with this is in calculations. It's not always possible to reuse the unused parts of a core to do some calculations because those parts might not be able to do so. Simply put, hyperthreading is a trick, something in the lines of Hans Klok