|
Hijacked a thread and want a larger opinion on the virtual machine topic for DAWs
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Robby Rox |
I hijacked a thread with this and was wondering what the deal is with VMs? Virtual machines?
If you don't know what VMs are the idea is if you want to keep your sequencer computer free from online access to maintain its speed (and not download or install a lot of programs on it) but DON'T want to buy a new computer, you install 2 or 3 VMs on 1 computer, use one for music and one for internet/video etc. I was told if you just boot one VM it will run at full CPU speed, but the advantage is no exposure to virus's/spyware, the only VM thats slows down is the one you allow to expose. When it slows down rather then doing a reformat you delete the VM and open up another.
This was the more specific comment in the other thread, feel free to read it or just skip and respond if you know enough about VMs. Thanks!
I just want to make a correction on a previous statement.
I relayed what you said back to my brother (the computer engineer who recommended using VMs) and he drew out a diagram to explain how they work.
He also showed me the 6 VMs on his computer, and the windows tasks bar to prove how CPU usage is divided.
He said the only things VMs (virtual machines) share is harddrive space, however much you allot to each machine. If I allot 40gigs to one VM, the other VM can't touch it. However, RAM and CPU power is only used as a sum total between what programs simultaneously run on each VM.
If I have FL running on one VM, and FL running on another VM, then CPU usage is spit depending by what is running on each VM and added.
That means it should NOT be any slower at all UNLESS you are running other programs at that same time. Which should go w/out saying. But if that is not the scenario, you get the same amount of CPU power by only booting 1 VM.
Now the *benefit* to having a VM.
If you surf the internet a lot, or download random crap from random places you are exposed to a lot of .
That will slow down you computer over time.
When you have a VM (for people who can't afford 2 seperate computers) if one slows down over time from spyware/installing/uninstalling a VM that is used just for music production will NOT. You can simply delete the VM, and reboot a 3rd that you built but never used.
It would keep the VM that you use running at optimum speed as long as you never go online (which is what I'll be doing). So I had him install 3 VMs on my one pc. One I will use for internet one for just music production, then a 3rd I never boot till the internet one gets raped with spyware/virus's.
I've owned everycopy of the most popular AV programs and can NEVER stop my internet pc from slowing down. So this will be a least interesting to try.
If not he can just delete both VM not a big deal. But I'll let you know how it goes. Also I've never seen this topic on this forum before.
>> end comment |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
If you don't know what VMs are the idea is if you want to keep your sequencer computer free from online access to maintain its speed (and not download or install a lot of programs on it) but DON'T want to buy a new computer, you install 2 or 3 VMs on 1 computer, use one for music and one for internet/video etc. I was told if you just boot one VM it will run at full CPU speed, but the advantage is no exposure to virus's/spyware, the only VM thats slows down is the one you allow to expose. When it slows down rather then doing a reformat you delete the VM and open up another.
|
Virtual Machines are good for a lot of different things, but I wouldn't recommend using one for production for several reasons.
- One, Virtual Machines are always inherently slower that native machines simply because VIrtual Machines do not have direct access to hardware unless you are using a hypervisor-based VM host such as Hyper-V for Windows. This requires hypervisor extensions on the host machine processors to be supported. Even with a hypervisor-based VM server the host operating system must manage resource allocation to the VM's which incurs additional overhead, thereby reducing overall performance of not only the virtual machines, but the host operating system.
- Second, most VM host software in your price range only supports a maximum of 2 virtual processors. You can get more processor support with some of the SUN hypervisor support, but thats way out of your price range.
- Third, Hyper-V in particular does not support USB devices natively, although there are third party solutions to enable this support. VMware does support this natively.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
He said the only things VMs (virtual machines) share is harddrive space, however much you allot to each machine. If I allot 40gigs to one VM, the other VM can't touch it. However, RAM and CPU power is only used as a sum total between what programs simultaneously run on each VM.
|
This is partly true, but resource allocation is entirely dependent on the VM host software being used. The old Virtual Server 2005 product actually sliced of a piece of the processor for each VM. Newer software dynamically allocates resources to each VM as needed but this also incurs additional overhead which slows down overall system performance. Virtual Hard DIsks can be shared among virtual machines if you want, as this functionality is supported with Hyper-V.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
That means it should NOT be any slower at all UNLESS you are running other programs at that same time. Which should go w/out saying. But if that is not the scenario, you get the same amount of CPU power by only booting 1 VM.
|
Not true, as I stated before there is an certain amount of overhead introduced because the VM software and host OS must manage resource allocation among all VM's, even if there is only 1 running. This slows down the overall system performance.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
It would keep the VM that you use running at optimum speed as long as you never go online (which is what I'll be doing). So I had him install 3 VMs on my one pc. One I will use for internet one for just music production, then a 3rd I never boot till the internet one gets raped with spyware/virus's.
|
The bottom line is that a virtual machine can never be as fast as a native machine. Period. So by default, if you use a virtual machine you are always taking a performance hit versus just running a native machine. In production, you need to be able to squeeze every last ounce of power out of your machine possible, and virtual machines are not the way to do this.
This seems like an overly complex solution to a simple problem. If you are really concerned with going online on your production machine, you'd be better off creating a dual boot system where one system is dedicated to production and another system is dedicated to general computing use. |
|
|
| beniii |
Robby, just try it out for yourself... see what happens.
p.s. Nice reply eric. |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| What if you did your producing on your host (without the VM open) and when you wanted to surf/chat/etc. you use the VM? |
|
|
| beniii |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
What if you did your producing on your host (without the VM open) and when you wanted to surf/chat/etc. you use the VM? |
It would be like having a large program open while producing.
If you have a killer PC/laptop, could be worth a try... |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
What if you did your producing on your host (without the VM open) and when you wanted to surf/chat/etc. you use the VM? |
The problem with this solution is that you are going to take a performance hit by running the VM host software alongside your DAW software. Running VM host is not cheap from a resource usage standpoint and is better suited to a machine which is dedicated to the task. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
ok Benni was right then it seems.
I just called my brother and asked him what he finished. He said he only deleted the c: drive, was getting around to reinstalling xp and the VM's tommorow.
I told him "don't do it!!" he was like "we already had this discussion before", I said it doesn't matter don't do it.
He was pissed but his stupid diagram didn't go into that much detail. Most of his decisions have been on point in the past, and I couldn't find a write up like this in google, I had to decide so sorry Benni. Really was nothing personal.
And thanks Eric J for explaining in detail. I can't wait to print this out and smack it directly in his face. Thats ed up he had nothing to gain by installing it.. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
This is funny he just texted me "whatever you heard I guarantee isn't true, I'll explain tommorow in greater detail".
I really am dying just to see what he says but I still don't wanna get involved with the VMs. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eric J
The problem with this solution is that you are going to take a performance hit by running the VM host software alongside your DAW software. Running VM host is not cheap from a resource usage standpoint and is better suited to a machine which is dedicated to the task. |
I'm trying to honestly think of what hes gonna say tommorow (my brother) and this is going to be where I don't know what to say.
How are you taking a "performance hit" if the VM software isn't running? He asked "without the vm running".
Because I watched the video, and read the response, and that wasn't addressed directly.
You said:
"Not true, as I stated before there is an certain amount of overhead introduced because the VM software and host OS must manage resource allocation among all VM's, even if there is only 1 running. This slows down the overall system performance."
By "1 running" do you mean VM? Because the scenario posed was running the native program without the VM. Or do you mean just by running the Native program? Even when no VMs are up and running?
Because then what you're saying is if I want to use my host computer, W/OUT a VM running, *just having* the VM on my computer (even when its not even booted) is going to drain my CPU?
And by allocation?
If I misunderstood I apologize, this is just the last relevant part I'm not understanding. The VM is not booted, but you are saying I'm still taking a CPU hit?
I just want to be clear. If I have a Core2E7400 2.8ghz, JUST ALLOCATING a VM is going to use enough cycles to actually cause a "hit"?
I don't want any sort of hit at all, so even a little I don't want. I just can't understand how allocating space affects this.
The host computer still has access to the full CPU usage, how is an unbooted VM impacting that? If you're mad that I can't understand, don't answer.
But I'm gonna look like an idiot tommorow if I don't clear this up. I don't care but I do want to have a clue what I'm talking about.
The vid in the other thread was good, but didn't get specific about this. Thanks. |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
How are you taking a "performance hit" if the VM software isn't running? He asked "without the vm running".
|
My response in that post was to this comment posted by Nightshift:
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
What if you did your producing on your host (without the VM open) and when you wanted to surf/chat/etc. you use the VM? |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
By "1 running" do you mean VM? Because the scenario posed was running the native program without the VM. Or do you mean just by running the Native program? Even when no VMs are up and running?
|
If there is no VM running then there is not a performance hit. My response was addressing the scenario where you have 1 or more VM's running.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
Because then what you're saying is if I want to use my host computer, W/OUT a VM running, *just having* the VM on my computer (even when its not even booted) is going to drain my CPU?
And by allocation? |
This is only true if you are running a VM host software package that runs as a service. VMWare Enterprise runs as a service, Windows Hyper-V runs as a service, so even when there is no VM running there would be a performance hist, although it would be very small if there is no VM running. When you fire up 1 or more VM's, the performance hit increases. If you are running an application-based VM host such as Microsoft Virtual PC or VMWare Fusion, there is no performance decrease to the host machine when the software is not running.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
If I misunderstood I apologize, this is just the last relevant part I'm not understanding. The VM is not booted, but you are saying I'm still taking a CPU hit?
|
See above reply, only in the case of a VM ware host package that runs as a service.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
I just want to be clear. If I have a Core2E7400 2.8ghz, JUST ALLOCATING a VM is going to use enough cycles to actually cause a "hit"?
I don't want any sort of hit at all, so even a little I don't want. I just can't understand how allocating space affects this.
The host computer still has access to the full CPU usage, how is an unbooted VM impacting that? If you're mad that I can't understand, don't answer.
But I'm gonna look like an idiot tommorow if I don't clear this up. I don't care but I do want to have a clue what I'm talking about.
|
You're definitely misunderstanding, see the above.
One thing that you have not told us is what VM host software your brother is using. There are several and most have their own little quirks and nuances. If I knew that, I could give you more specific information on the questions you are asking and specific scenarios where you may or may not take a performance hit. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
Ok great.
I'll just tell you briefly what I care about.
I wanted the VM to test software on, but would never have it booted when I was making music (which is what I posted in my thread and what nighshift commented about).
When nighshift made that comment I thought he was talking about the scenario of using them seperately, not together. (with VM being booted just for chat/surfing then shutting it down for music production) which is what I honestly think he still was talking about lol.
But I think the most important thing is I find out what hes using and then you can give me better direction. I will not have the VM booted at anytime when I'm making music, so it would be under those terms. Which is what I originally asked.. and I'm still honestly not sure why people answered in reference to having the VM booted.
I'm sorry but I thought I clearly stated that. Just nevermind. I'm going to find out one way or another I guess.. |
|
|
| atxbigballer1 |
Dual Boot With no Boot Manager
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSvRlJXoT_g
Just want to help u Robby!
U don't need that VM !
When I build a computer/daw i am going to try to do what that dude did in that youtube link! |
|
|
|
|
