Virtual PC on a Flash Drive
-
I started installing Win 7 on a Virtual PC on a 32 gig flash drive this morning. It is still running. Apparently using the flash drive was not a good idea.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
it might be easier/faster to install to hard drive and image it to flash drive.
-
I started installing Win 7 on a Virtual PC on a 32 gig flash drive this morning. It is still running. Apparently using the flash drive was not a good idea.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Uhhh...no, it wasn't. I wouldn't be surprised if you were still waiting for it to complete tomorrow night.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009... -
I started installing Win 7 on a Virtual PC on a 32 gig flash drive this morning. It is still running. Apparently using the flash drive was not a good idea.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Once, I relocated my temp and build directories to a flash drive, thinking that it will speed the build. The build slowed down 5x times.
Click here to get a Google Wave Invite.
modified on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 4:22 PM
-
Once, I relocated my temp and build directories to a flash drive, thinking that it will speed the build. The build slowed down 5x times.
Click here to get a Google Wave Invite.
modified on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 4:22 PM
Your mistake was using logic with Microsoft. :)
-
Once, I relocated my temp and build directories to a flash drive, thinking that it will speed the build. The build slowed down 5x times.
Click here to get a Google Wave Invite.
modified on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 4:22 PM
I am so glad I am not the only person who fubared a build process like this.
And above all things, never think that you're not good enough yourself. A man should never think that. My belief is that in life people will take you at your own reckoning. --Isaac Asimov Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
I started installing Win 7 on a Virtual PC on a 32 gig flash drive this morning. It is still running. Apparently using the flash drive was not a good idea.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Consumer flash drives are typically MLC devices, which have a fairly low write speed (lower than modern hard disks).
-
Consumer flash drives are typically MLC devices, which have a fairly low write speed (lower than modern hard disks).
So are consumer SSDs which blow HDs away in write performance. The issue is that SSDs typically have 10ish chips in a defacto RAID0 a USB drive is too small to fit that many in, and being manufactured to be as cheap as possible most probably only have a single chip (ultra high capacity and higher performance models provisionally excepted). They also go with the cheapest controllers available which have inherently crappy performance as well as the slowest binned flash chips out of a batch for the same reason. In theory a flash drive could be made that saturated the effective USB bus bandwidth but the market for something that expensive just doesn't exist.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
So are consumer SSDs which blow HDs away in write performance. The issue is that SSDs typically have 10ish chips in a defacto RAID0 a USB drive is too small to fit that many in, and being manufactured to be as cheap as possible most probably only have a single chip (ultra high capacity and higher performance models provisionally excepted). They also go with the cheapest controllers available which have inherently crappy performance as well as the slowest binned flash chips out of a batch for the same reason. In theory a flash drive could be made that saturated the effective USB bus bandwidth but the market for something that expensive just doesn't exist.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
So are consumer SSDs which blow HDs away in write performance.
Not so much. See http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/07/22/review_storage_ssd_kingston_ssd_now_v/page3.html[^]. An SSD was outpaced copying a 2GB file by a spinning platter. On the other hand, reads, especialluy random access, are a lot quicker.
-
Dan Neely wrote:
So are consumer SSDs which blow HDs away in write performance.
Not so much. See http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/07/22/review_storage_ssd_kingston_ssd_now_v/page3.html[^]. An SSD was outpaced copying a 2GB file by a spinning platter. On the other hand, reads, especialluy random access, are a lot quicker.
The kingston drive is using a JMicron controller; which has a very bad reputation. Since el Reg didn't do any small (4k) random write tests it's not clear if they fixed the flaw that reduced it to floppy disk levels of suck in some circumstances. If you look at the other two SSDs listed the intel one bascially tied the mechanical drive, and the intel controller is much slower on sequential writes than the Indilinx (Patriot) and Samsung (not tested) controllers.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
I started installing Win 7 on a Virtual PC on a 32 gig flash drive this morning. It is still running. Apparently using the flash drive was not a good idea.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
If you want fast SSD, you need the firetrucking expensive ones. If you want to tell your grandkids "I am an early adopter who helped fund the SSD revolution", buy ten of them and put them into a RAID :rolleyes: I've installed Windows 7 one one of those totally overpriced, totally outdated raptors, very smooth.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server