How to give more CPU to VMWare?

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

I'm running some CPU intensive tasks simultaneously on openSUSE 11.0 host
and an XP guest in VMWareServer 1.x.

Top is showing 100 to 105 % CPU for the task on host and only less than
10% for vmware-vmx.

In the guest the Process Explorer is showing 98% CPU for the task.

And task is running sooo slowly there.
Can I give more CPU to the guest somehow?

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:43am (EEST), sunset 10:08pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:24 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
12:22pm up 39 days 20:56, 13 users, load average: 0.21, 0.23, 0.19

darklight · External Since: May 11, 2004 Posts: 40

Vahis wrote:

> I'm running some CPU intensive tasks simultaneously on openSUSE 11.0 host
> and an XP guest in VMWareServer 1.x.
>
> Top is showing 100 to 105 % CPU for the task on host and only less than
> 10% for vmware-vmx.
>
> In the guest the Process Explorer is showing 98% CPU for the task.
>
> And task is running sooo slowly there.
> Can I give more CPU to the guest somehow?
>
> Vahis

question is how much ram is assigned to vmware.
second what are the specs of your pc.

I have no problem ripping a dvd and using virtualbox at the same time.
cpu amd X2 64bit 6400+ 2 gig ram. 750 mb assigned to virtualbox.

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

On 2009-07-24, darklight <nglennglen.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote:
> Vahis wrote:
>
>> I'm running some CPU intensive tasks simultaneously on openSUSE 11.0 host
>> and an XP guest in VMWareServer 1.x.
>>
>> Top is showing 100 to 105 % CPU for the task on host and only less than
>> 10% for vmware-vmx.
>>
>> In the guest the Process Explorer is showing 98% CPU for the task.
>>
>> And task is running sooo slowly there.
>> Can I give more CPU to the guest somehow?
>>
>> Vahis
>
> question is how much ram is assigned to vmware.
> second what are the specs of your pc.

RAM: 8 GB altogether, 3 GB assigned to VM at this moment.
That's what I understand 32 bit windows can handle.

Top shows low consumption figures for VM, both CPU and RAM though.

CPU: Intel Quad 6600

>
> I have no problem ripping a dvd and using virtualbox at the same time.
> cpu amd X2 64bit 6400+ 2 gig ram. 750 mb assigned to virtualbox.

Me neither. I was running Transcode on the host. Transcode was consuming
under and over 100% (of one core that is, 25% of all)
Host was fully responsive.

But this is not Virtualbox, it's VMWareServer. Maybe they're different,
or maybe its priority can be raised.

VM was consuming only like 10% while running DVDDecrypter.

I'll investigate this further, my aim is to give virtual machines more
resources when available. I would have had a _lot_ more in this case.
Maybe it's got to do with the guest being XP, dunno. Maybe VMWServer and
XP can not together take what's available.

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:43am (EEST), sunset 10:08pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:24 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
2:37pm up 39 days 23:11, 13 users, load average: 0.21, 0.41, 0.71

central · External Since: Jul 24, 2009 Posts: 2

This message is not archived

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

On 2009-07-24, central <central77 RemoveThis @fastmailNOSPAM.fm> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:57:57 +0000, Vahis wrote:
>
>> I'm running some CPU intensive tasks simultaneously on openSUSE 11.0
>> host and an XP guest in VMWareServer 1.x.
>>
>> Top is showing 100 to 105 % CPU for the task on host and only less than
>> 10% for vmware-vmx.
>>
>> In the guest the Process Explorer is showing 98% CPU for the task.
>>
>> And task is running sooo slowly there. Can I give more CPU to the guest
>> somehow?
>>
>> Vahis
>
> Dont know if it helps, but VM server v2 lets you allocate processor/cores
> per vm

How is VMServer2 today?
I rolled back to 1.09 after facing too much trouble with 2.
I also read in several occasions that I wasn't alone then.
It's a few months back so maybe it's got better?

Any issues?

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:43am (EEST), sunset 10:08pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:24 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
7:10pm up 40 days 3:44, 12 users, load average: 5.68, 3.84, 1.83

central · External Since: Jul 24, 2009 Posts: 2

This message is not archived

jc · External Since: Jul 17, 2009 Posts: 5

central wrote:
>
> Well, I think (subjectively) its faster than v1. I swapped because I was
> having screen resolutions, and its certainly fixed that. Biggest problem
> is that I need to get permissions sorted - it'll only run some vm's as
> root,

Why would you want to run a VM as root? Just wondering,

jc

FatBytestard · External Since: Jul 24, 2009 Posts: 5

On 24 Jul 2009 17:22:56 GMT, central <central77.DeleteThis@fastmailNOSPAM.fm> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:13:53 +0000, Vahis wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-24, central <central77.DeleteThis@fastmailNOSPAM.fm> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:57:57 +0000, Vahis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm running some CPU intensive tasks simultaneously on openSUSE 11.0
>>>> host and an XP guest in VMWareServer 1.x.
>>>>
>>>> Top is showing 100 to 105 % CPU for the task on host and only less
>>>> than 10% for vmware-vmx.
>>>>
>>>> In the guest the Process Explorer is showing 98% CPU for the task.
>>>>
>>>> And task is running sooo slowly there. Can I give more CPU to the
>>>> guest somehow?
>>>>
>>>> Vahis
>>>
>>> Dont know if it helps, but VM server v2 lets you allocate
>>> processor/cores per vm
>>
>> How is VMServer2 today?
>> I rolled back to 1.09 after facing too much trouble with 2. I also read
>> in several occasions that I wasn't alone then. It's a few months back so
>> maybe it's got better?
>>
>> Any issues?
>>
>> Vahis
>
>Well, I think (subjectively) its faster than v1. I swapped because I was
>having screen resolutions, and its certainly fixed that. Biggest problem
>is that I need to get permissions sorted - it'll only run some vm's as
>root, which doesnt make me happy. And bear in mind I only ever use it
>seriously for win2k, otherwise its just for checking other OSs out.
>
>Summary: I was tempted to roll back but am now happy I didnt.

Ever tried one of the free emulators? I would think that a windows
session under Wine would be managed pretty good, even though vmware are
"the big boys".

FatBytestard · External Since: Jul 24, 2009 Posts: 5

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:02:26 GMT, Vahis <waxborg.TakeThisOut@gmail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>
>There's a fine couple BTW, Nokia and M$!
>
>Vahis

You do not blame vmware?

FatBytestard · External Since: Jul 24, 2009 Posts: 5

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:35:28 -0700, jc <me.RemoveThis@somewhere.comm> wrote:

>central wrote:
>>
>> Well, I think (subjectively) its faster than v1. I swapped because I was
>> having screen resolutions, and its certainly fixed that. Biggest problem
>> is that I need to get permissions sorted - it'll only run some vm's as
>> root,
>
>Why would you want to run a VM as root? Just wondering,
>
>
>
>jc

If it does not do any network tasks, is it a vulnerability?

Kevin Nathan · External Since: Apr 04, 2004 Posts: 1241

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:11:14 GMT
Vahis <waxborg.RemoveThis@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>I run stuff both on hardware and virtual hardware.
>I've been doing so since the beginning of eighties.
>What do you figure out of that?

Feeling a bit frisky tonight, eh? Smile

I no longer get his posts (along
with many others) because most of the time he was acting like a troll.
I can't tell if he still is, because I can only see what people quote
of his msgs, but you are probably wasting your electrons trying to
reason with him -- but I could be wrong . . . ;-D

--
Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA)
Linux Potpourri and a.o.l.s. FAQ -- (temporarily offline)

Open standards. Open source. Open minds.
The command line is the front line.
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-pae
1:35am up 6 days 2:57, 30 users, load average: 0.26, 0.22, 0.22

Kevin Nathan · External Since: Apr 04, 2004 Posts: 1241

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:51:54 GMT
Vahis <waxborg.RemoveThis@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>So this is a good chance to waste some time in the kindergarden.

Ok, gotcha! Smile

Well, it is way past my bedtime. G'night all!

--
Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA)
Linux Potpourri and a.o.l.s. FAQ -- (temporarily offline)

Open standards. Open source. Open minds.
The command line is the front line.
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-pae
2:01am up 6 days 3:23, 30 users, load average: 0.97, 1.01, 0.80

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

On 2009-07-25, FatBytestard <FatBytestard.DeleteThis@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2009 17:22:56 GMT, central <central77.DeleteThis@fastmailNOSPAM.fm> wrote:
>
>
> Ever tried one of the free emulators? I would think that a windows
> session under Wine would be managed pretty good, even though vmware are
> "the big boys".

Some applications run in wine just fine.
I'm running _one_ application in wine: Spotify.

An emulator is a different thing from a virtual machine.

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:45am (EEST), sunset 10:06pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:20 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
8:51am up 40 days 17:25, 12 users, load average: 2.32, 1.76, 1.09

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

On 2009-07-25, FatBytestard <FatBytestard.RemoveThis@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:02:26 GMT, Vahis <waxborg.RemoveThis@gmail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>There's a fine couple BTW, Nokia and M$!
>>
>>Vahis
>
>
> You do not blame vmware?

VMWare with its shortcomings has nothing to do with Nokia. Or M$.

No matter how well a virtual machine runs windows, it's still windows.
The same goes with Nokia's PCSuite.

Running together on real hardware they are still quite a couple.

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:45am (EEST), sunset 10:06pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:20 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
8:57am up 40 days 17:31, 12 users, load average: 0.92, 1.75, 1.33

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

On 2009-07-25, FatBytestard <FatBytestard DeleteThis @somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:35:28 -0700, jc <me DeleteThis @somewhere.comm> wrote:
>
>>central wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I think (subjectively) its faster than v1. I swapped because I was
>>> having screen resolutions, and its certainly fixed that. Biggest problem
>>> is that I need to get permissions sorted - it'll only run some vm's as
>>> root,
>>
>>Why would you want to run a VM as root? Just wondering,
>>
>>
>>
>>jc
>
> If it does not do any network tasks, is it a vulnerability?

Yes.

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:45am (EEST), sunset 10:06pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:20 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
9:02am up 40 days 17:36, 12 users, load average: 0.13, 0.83, 1.06

FatBytestard · External Since: Jul 24, 2009 Posts: 5

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:01:06 GMT, Vahis <waxborg.TakeThisOut@gmail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>Running together on real hardware they are still quite a couple.

You run it on fake hardware?

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

On 2009-07-25, FatBytestard <FatBytestard DeleteThis @somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:01:06 GMT, Vahis <waxborg DeleteThis @gmail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Running together on real hardware they are still quite a couple.
>
> You run it on fake hardware?

I run stuff both on hardware and virtual hardware.
I've been doing so since the beginning of eighties.
What do you figure out of that?

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:45am (EEST), sunset 10:06pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:20 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
11:09am up 40 days 19:43, 14 users, load average: 0.51, 0.34, 0.39

Vahis · External Since: May 19, 2007 Posts: 79

On 2009-07-25, Kevin Nathan <knathan DeleteThis @project54.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:11:14 GMT
> Vahis <waxborg DeleteThis @gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I run stuff both on hardware and virtual hardware.
>>I've been doing so since the beginning of eighties.
>>What do you figure out of that?
>
> Feeling a bit frisky tonight, eh? Smile

I no longer get his posts (along
> with many others) because most of the time he was acting like a troll.
> I can't tell if he still is, because I can only see what people quote
> of his msgs, but you are probably wasting your electrons trying to
> reason with him -- but I could be wrong . . . ;-D

It's not really hard to come to conclusions similar with yours Smile

I've just got some spare time, testing different software to rip
dvd:s and their subs.

So this is a good chance to waste some time in the kindergarden.

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:45am (EEST), sunset 10:06pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:20 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
11:42am up 40 days 20:16, 14 users, load average: 0.37, 0.58, 0.59

FatBytestard · External Since: Jul 24, 2009 Posts: 5

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:11:14 GMT, Vahis <waxborg RemoveThis @gmail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2009-07-25, FatBytestard <FatBytestard RemoveThis @somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:01:06 GMT, Vahis <waxborg RemoveThis @gmail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Running together on real hardware they are still quite a couple.
>>
>> You run it on fake hardware?
>
>I run stuff both on hardware and virtual hardware.
>I've been doing so since the beginning of eighties.
>What do you figure out of that?
>
>Vahis

No. Virtual is not Fake.

The question was a joke, but it flew past.