Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 01:47 UTC, submitted by rohan_p

Thread beginning with comment 551269
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Laurence
by Alfman on Sun 3rd Feb 2013 09:52
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Laurence"
terra,
Yea, I can't say that I see much benefit in the dual VMs personally, I doubt that I would have gone that approach.
Also one metric that I particularly have always found VMs to be lacking in was GUI performance. A top of the line system might remove GUI lag, but I can certainly feel it on my system. I wonder if one might do better running a virtual framebuffer in the VM running VNC?
It would have an interesting side benefit of allowing other computers on the network use the anonymous desktop session through VNC, not sure whether that's a good idea or not though.
Member since:
2012-11-01
What user would see is not merely the 5-10% overhead of VM. Rather the overhead of OS inside the VM as well as other overhead of layers, which would be more than 20 or 30% in the end.
Actually, on my late 2011 MBP with i5 24Ghz, I feel like it is actually less than 50% of application running natively.
5-10% is barebone perfomance of VM against barehone perfomance is actual hardware I rekon.