• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

VM Storage Controller options...

C

Churnd

n00b
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
54
When creating a VM in any VMware product, you have the ability to choose from different kinds of storage controllers or bus types that the virtual hard drive(s) will be connected to. Depending on the product, some list as IDE, SCSI, SATA & even ESXi gives you the capability of emulating different brands of controllers such as LSI. Is there any actual performance benefit to choosing one type of controller over the other? I notice most default to IDE, but you'd think that'd be slowest.
 
PVSCSI (right workload) > LSI SAS >= PVSCSI (eh workload workload) >= LSI Logic >>>>>>>>> Buslogic >> PVSCSI (bad workload) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IDE.

edit: For ESXi.
 
The lower performance options(IDE,SCSI) are for guest OS support. The guest OS needs driver support for the disks to been recognized. That is why a lot of the OS specifications default to LSI or IDE.

The fastest controller would be paravirtual since it has the least impact on the CPU and is designed to work with the hypervisor.
 
Not totally accurate, but close - both fo the LSI controllers are SCSI controllers (SCSI and SAS). There's very little difference between the SAS and SCSI controller other than PGR support. IDE sucks ass. Buslogic would be decent, but the default Queue length is 1, so performance on it generally is lousy (but os support rocks - everything has a buslogic driver).

PVSCSI is NOT a panacea. It works great on some workloads, ok on others, and LOUSY on others. :) You have to test to see if it's going to have any benefit for what you're doing.
 
What do you recommend for win7 guests? I created a couple for my step-kids, and the wizard defaulted to IDE. I suspect it may not matter, since nothing they do is really disk-intensive, but being a bit anal here... :)
 
lopoetve said:
PVSCSI is NOT a panacea. It works great on some workloads, ok on others, and LOUSY on others. :) You have to test to see if it's going to have any benefit for what you're doing.
Click to expand...

Fix it. :>. Obviously, the paravirtualization is what we're all after.
 
danswartz said:
What do you recommend for win7 guests? I created a couple for my step-kids, and the wizard defaulted to IDE. I suspect it may not matter, since nothing they do is really disk-intensive, but being a bit anal here... :)
Click to expand...

LSI Logic/LSI SAS :)
 
defuseme2k said:
Fix it. :>. Obviously, the paravirtualization is what we're all after.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not broken - it's designed for a specific workload that virtualization sometimes has trouble with (when virtualizing scsi). It's pretty specific right now. Other than that, we can get almost bare-metal performance with the SCSI cards, so why change it? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top