From: adam@address.invalid   
      
   David W. Hodgins wrote:   
   > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:49:07 -0400, Adam  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Thanks, BT!  I agree, things running ~12% more slowly wouldn't be   
   >> noticeable most of the time.  Others here have said that in VirtualBox,   
   >> dynamic virtual disks are slower than static ones, but haven't given any   
   >> numbers.   
   >   
   > With a dynamic drive the slowdown is very noticeable on my system.   
   > Probably   
   > runs around 50-60% of bare hardware speed.  With a fixed disk, I'd estimate   
   > around 80-90% speed of bare hardware.   
      
   That's in line with what BT (thanks, BT!) reports, a dynamic drive at   
   ~61% of the host system's speed.  That much /would/ be noticeable.  Ever   
   since reading that quite a few months ago, I've created my VMs with   
   static HDs.   
      
   > With a multicore system, or a faster hard drive (ssd would be great),   
   > I'd expect the difference to be barely noticeable.   
      
   My main system is now a quad-core.  ATM I don't have any Linux VMs on it   
   but I'm tempted to create one for the disk speed comparison.  Also for   
   some CPU-intensive benchmark.  Of course the VM would have to be as   
   close to my native install as possible.   
      
   Adam   
   --   
   Registered Linux User #536473   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)