Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#2403 closed enhancement (duplicate)
Shared Folder speed with DC++ on Virtual box is 2 to 3 times slower than DC++ on Parallels
| Reported by: | b1ll | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Component: | shared folders | Version: | VirtualBox 2.0.2 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Guest type: | Windows | Host type: | Mac OS X |
Description
Since trying to move from Parallels to Virtualbox, I thought I was experiencing slower io performance with Virtualbox. I couldn't find a generic free io test, so I setup a small test using bcdc++. My test uses about 200 files at between 200 and 350MB, plus a similar amount of of small files at 200-600kb, all located in a single directory.
I have timed indexing this directory of random binary files using DC++ on XP with Virtualbox and Parallels. Parallels is always 2 to 3 times faster than Virtualbox. The files that are being indexed, are on a ZFS volume. The files are accessed by a single mount of root file system exposed to Parallels and Virtualbox. "/" is mounted as drive Z. So bcdc++ accesses the directory as such, Z:\Volumes\<zfs volume name>\<zfs directory>
bcdc++ can be found here(I use 0.699d binaries): http://utrum.dyndns.org:8000/index.html zfs is here(I use 119 binaries): http://zfs.macosforge.org/trac/wiki/downloads both of these apps have source available. It would be nice if Virtualbox could be at least as speedy as Parallels.
Change History (7)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 16 years ago
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
Replying to frank:
Just to be sure: You have mounted the ZFS file system natively to your Mac OS X host and mounted that directory to the Windows XP guest running on VirtualBox using shared folders, right?
Yes, the zfs volume is mounted natively and the access is via shared folders.
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
| Summary: | IO Speed with DC++ on Virtual box is 2 to 3 times slower than DC++ on Parallels → Shared Folder speed with DC++ on Virtual box is 2 to 3 times slower than DC++ on Parallels |
|---|
follow-up: 5 comment:4 by , 16 years ago
Duplicate of #1728. Could you check the update there to see if there's any improvement in your case? (I'll leave this one open for now)
follow-up: 6 comment:5 by , 16 years ago
Replying to sandervl73:
Duplicate of #1728. Could you check the update there to see if there's any improvement in your case? (I'll leave this one open for now)
At first blush, there seems to be an improvement after updating vboxMRXNP.dll. I ran my test for a a few moments and it appears to be as fast as Parallels now. A complete run takes about an hour on Parallels. I will update this ticket later today.
comment:6 by , 16 years ago
Replying to b1ll:
Replying to sandervl73:
Duplicate of #1728. Could you check the update there to see if there's any improvement in your case? (I'll leave this one open for now)
At first blush, there seems to be an improvement after updating vboxMRXNP.dll. I ran my test for a a few moments and it appears to be as fast as Parallels now. A complete run takes about an hour on Parallels. I will update this ticket later today.
The replacement "vboxMRXNP.dll" does indeed solve the speed issue I was experiencing. Thanks.
comment:7 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → duplicate |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Just to be sure: You have mounted the ZFS file system natively to your Mac OS X host and mounted that directory to the Windows XP guest running on VirtualBox using shared folders, right?