New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Internet, Networking, and Wireless Discussion of networking, internet, and wireless including Apple's Airport products.

Thunderbolt Fast Enough For Multiple VM's?


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
Renton

 
Member Since: Nov 25, 2011
Posts: 3
Renton is on a distinguished road

Renton is offline
Hi - I'm new to this forum but have been around OSX for several years.

I have a new 2011 mac mini (2.3 i5 - 8GB) and I do a fair amount of virtualization testing using VirtualBox on Sever 2008 etc. Even though I use fixed sized VHD's, I'm always running low on disk space as it's only got 500GB internal storage. So the question is, if I moved the VHD's onto a thunderbolt external hard drive such as the Lacie variant, am I right in thinking that it should easily cope with the constant throughput? Or am I missing something obvious?

I'd rather be sure before buying one
QUOTE Thanks
BrianLachoreVPI

 
BrianLachoreVPI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 25, 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,742
BrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant futureBrianLachoreVPI has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: March 2011 15" MBP 2.3GHz i7 Quad Core 8GB Ram | Mid 2011 27" iMac 3.4 GHz i7 16 GB RAM 2 TB HDD

BrianLachoreVPI is offline
If it's the Lacie SSD variant - then yes - I think you'll have sufficient bandwidth.
QUOTE Thanks
Renton

 
Member Since: Nov 25, 2011
Posts: 3
Renton is on a distinguished road

Renton is offline
Thanks for the reply.

I was thinking more along the lines of the 1TB model, rather than SSD. Bearing in mind the internal drive is only a 5400rpm drive, through a logic board and onto the PCI-express bus. I was kind of thinking thunderbolt drives should technically be even faster, over that interface with 7200rpm disks. I have no speed issues at presen tho, and that's with running two server 2008 machines, each with 2 VHD's attached - just not much space left after iTunes content and photos etc
QUOTE Thanks
cwa107

 
cwa107's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 20, 2006
Location: Middletown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,632
cwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD

cwa107 is offline
Thunderbolt has more than enough bandwidth for a disk array of any kind. The bottleneck will be the latency of the HDDs, not the bus. There's no reason why you would see a difference in performance over an internal drive.

Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!
QUOTE Thanks
Renton

 
Member Since: Nov 25, 2011
Posts: 3
Renton is on a distinguished road

Renton is offline
This is sounding like a plan then - I'll report back once I've bought one and got it up and running!
QUOTE Thanks
XJ-linux

 
XJ-linux's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 02, 2007
Location: Going Galt...
Posts: 3,360
XJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond reputeXJ-linux has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: MacBookAir5,2:10.9.5-MacMini3,1:10.9.5-iPhone6,1:8.1

XJ-linux is offline
All of my VM's at work are boot from SAN (DS8300 and XIV) over fiber. So, it's definitely possible with a decent connection. The physical disk is usually more of a bottleneck than throughput of the connection, and mine at 15000 rpm drives. You wouldn't be competing with a whole network's worth of traffic either so I would have no big concern with contention. Assuming you aren't serving up a very active database to a large user pool, I bet it works fine. You may find that some extra RAM on the host OS helps performance more than anything else as far as passing data through the connection.

"Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." Henry Spencer
QUOTE Thanks
Dysfunction

 
Dysfunction's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 17, 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 6,638
Dysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant futureDysfunction has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: 2008 and 2011 15" mbps, late 11 iMac, iPhone 4s, and too many ipods and other stuff

Dysfunction is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJ-linux View Post
All of my VM's at work are boot from SAN (DS8300 and XIV) over fiber. So, it's definitely possible with a decent connection. The physical disk is usually more of a bottleneck than throughput of the connection, and mine at 15000 rpm drives. You wouldn't be competing with a whole network's worth of traffic either so I would have no big concern with contention. Assuming you aren't serving up a very active database to a large user pool, I bet it works fine. You may find that some extra RAM on the host OS helps performance more than anything else as far as passing data through the connection.
It's amazing just how many systems out there boot off of either DASD or SAN connected devices. FWIW, the 10Gbit/s throughput is much faster than that DDM's installed in the enclosures, so the bottleneck will be the drive itself as stated above. It doesn't, btw, matter if it's rotational or solid state storage. That will still be the case.

mike
This machine kills fascists
Got # ? phear the command line!
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« Loss of Wi-Fi signal strength on Airport Express | Network Multiple Macs »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Apple issues firmware updates, Thunderbolt software update, more OneMoreThing... Apple Rumors and Reports 1 10-27-2011 02:22 PM
Apple Thunderbolt Display-Connection Confusion! ENVY16 Other Hardware and Peripherals 1 07-26-2011 10:39 AM
Apple Introduces World's First Thunderbolt Display OneMoreThing... Apple Rumors and Reports 4 07-20-2011 11:37 PM
First Look: Inside Apple's fast new Thunderbolt port on MacBook Pros the8thark Apple Rumors and Reports 29 03-12-2011 01:31 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?