Virtualization Station - Windows 10 64-bit VM very slow

[Poeth_C]

First time poster, long time lurker...

I have a TS-453 pro with 16GB of memory that I'm happy with, except the VM that I created is very slow. It's a Windows 10 Pro 64 bit VM. Currently it has all 4 cores available to it, and 4 GB of memory. I've tried allocating more memory - it doesn't help.

With no applications running on the VM, it take about 6 seconds just to open a folder!

Is this performance to be expected with my TS-453 pro and a windows 10 VM?

I was really hoping to get similar performance to my thinkpad laptop (64 bit intel i5's with 8GB RAM). Ultimately I'd like to run my Solidworks CAD (it runs fine on my laptop) in the VM and maby a few other small applications.

I'm a newbie so I'm not sure what kind of performance expectations are realistic from a VM. If I can't do what I want with my TS-453 pro, would another model be better? Or maybe I just need to build a desktop PC and remote into that.....?

Thanks for any advice you can give!

[dolbyman]

not sure how you would expect i5 performance from a celeron equipped qnap under a vm ...

also AutoCAD normally wants a dedicated graphics card Quattro or FirePro..at least in 3D modeling

did you try assigning less cpu's to the win10 vm ? so make it a dual core ? also did you install the guest addons ?

[Trexx]

I would also recommend making sure you have installed the guest add-ons, and updated the VM config accordingly.

The latest version of the drivers can be found here:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/virt/vi ... io-win.iso

But even with the OPTIMAL config for the VM, there is no way it will perform to the level of your thinkpad laptop.

[surfkauai]

Qnap doesn't virtualize hardware.

If you're looking for performance and virtualization of the client machines hardware then you need to invest your time in a type 1 hypervisor (Xen, ESXi, or vSphere) which support hardware virtualization.

[Trexx]

Qnap doesn't virtualize hardware.

That is not technically true. I am pretty sure that Virtualization Station is built on top of KVM kernel modules leveraging QEMU which can leverage HW virtualization.
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page
http://wiki.qemu-project.org/Features/KVM

Now all that being said, it is still considered a Type-2 Hypervisor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor

Bigger issue is that you have it running on a cpu with a passmark of less than 2000.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... 40+1.99GHz

[surfkauai]

Qnap doesn't virtualize hardware.

That is not technically true. I am pretty sure that Virtualization Station is built on top of KVM kernel modules leveraging QEMU which can leverage HW virtualization.
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page
http://wiki.qemu-project.org/Features/KVM

Now all that being said, it is still considered a Type-2 Hypervisor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor

Bigger issue is that you have it running on a cpu with a passmark of less than 2000.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... 40+1.99GHz

Actually, it is technically and absolutely true.

Qnap is not a type 1 hypervisor, as previously stated. Qnap has a type 2 hypervisor application. Qnap only virtualizes hardware of the host [Qnap], not the client's hardware. The OP was hoping to gain performance, which will not happen unless Qnap had some high-performing components, which it does not and most if not all Qnap devices are not upgradeable to performance driven hardware. It's a storage device (NAS), not a virtualization server.

Qnap's virtualization software is the same as running VMware workstation (virtualpc, or Microsofts Hyper-V) another type 2 hypervisor... on a high-end pc. With type 2 hypervisors you're using the hosts hardware, not the clients. If I were to host VM's to others within my household, most would see great performance, since the clients will be utilizing high-performing hardware from the host even if the users had crappy systems. But, if the host had low-performing hardware, then their experiences will be dramatically different and the client hardware isn't going to pick up the slack. Users also need to consider the through-put of their network.

A Type 1 hypervisor serves the operating-system, which utilizes the clients physical hardware. A type 1 hypervisor is true hardware virtualization, unlike type 2 hypervisors... type 2 are just replicators with crappy drivers to emulate hardware.

ps: don't post wikipedia articles as credible texts

[OneCD]

ps: don't post wikipedia articles as credible texts

Hey new guy, try to remember this community was here long before you arrived. So, don't instruct experienced community members.

[surfkauai]

ps: don't post wikipedia articles as credible texts

Hey new guy, try to remember this community was here long before you arrived. So, don't instruct experienced community members.

I may be new to the forum, but posting wikipedia articles as credible and scholarly evidence is nonsensical jibberish which can be edited by joe blow. Besides, I have more experience in HV than this guy.

Also there is credible texts available regarding Type 1 and Type 2 hypervisors which confirm my statements well before wikipedia came out of no-where-land. Go search for them, I provided you a lead.

Seems that you're now on a witch-hunt since you complained to me about posting before searching about my initial question on the forum, grow up. The purpose of a forum is to share experiences, if you cannot handle that then leave.

[OneCD]

Seems that you're now on a witch-hunt since you complained to me about posting before searching about my initial question on the forum, grow up. The purpose of a forum is to share experiences, if you cannot handle that then leave.

Seems you want to change the community forum to suit you. Let's see how that works out.

[Trexx]

I may be new to the forum, but posting wikipedia articles as credible and scholarly evidence is nonsensical jibberish which can be edited by joe blow. Besides, I have more experience in HV than this guy.

I used wikipedia as it was some of the first links that came up and gave a good overview that the average user can relate too since I was doing this during a couple free minutes between meetings at my day job.

As for HV, I have almost 20 years experience in enterprise IT. I have been working with VMware all the back to the early GSX days. I have personally built, installed and supported (from HW level up) VM Farms, SAN's, etc. at ENTERPRISE scale and currently do Infrastructure Architecture for a Global Financial institution on projects that can have HW budgets in the multi-million dollar range.

So I think I know a thing or 2 about this field in general.

I never said that it was a Type 1 hypervisor, but that doesn't mean that it can't do HW virtualization (depending on your specific definition of what HW virtualization is). For more information (non-wikipedia) on KVM architecture, you can look here. http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~yuf/slides/kvm.pdf

I also said from day 1 that his expectation of getting thinkpad performance out of a celeron processor was flawed. As for QNAP models, they do have higher end options in their TVS-x82 families that support i7 processors, GPU passthrough, etc. but that is not what the original poster purchased or was trying to run this on.

[Poeth_C]

Hi All, thanks for sharing the advice & experience! It sounds like I won't get the VM performance I'm looking for out of my TS-453 pro. So I can stop wasting my time. I'll research my options with a TVS-x82 model or maybe just build a Desktop PC to remote into.

Thanks for giving me some clarity!

-Casey

[Trexx]

No problem.

[MikeLagit]

New guys has topped out at 8 posts and made his max contribution to the forum, lol.

Rather than start a new thread, I might as well add here since the subject is the same. I have been playing around with VS3 and windows 10, and I'm a little surprised it's a little slower vs running the same VM on my desktop PC with Virtualbox (virtualbox.org). My PC is a i7-6800K processor (video built onto the chip), and the NAS is a Ryzen 7 1700 (TS-877). Virtualbox on the PC is pretty snappy with any VM and I can use it easily, but on the TS-877 it's noticeably more sluggish. I've noticed. I have tried both the VNC browser and RDP to access it. Can someone tell me if these are the best optimized settings as far as the VM itself?

NAS Windows 10 VM Settings:

• CPU - Passthrough - 16 cores and have tried only 2 cores as well and don't see a difference
  4GB RAM (nothing really running on it yet so is OK)
  Network - VirtIO
  Storage - No cache, and VirtIO driver
  Video - VGA < or should this be VMVGA?
  
  VirtiIO drivers installed on Windows 10 inside the VM - check!

For a stock level VM, can I do anything else to increase responsiveness? Network utilization looks low on the NAS and doesn't seem to be a bottleneck between the viewer PC and NAS itself. Looking at Win 10 task manager, the C: disk seems a bit busy, so maybe dedicated SSD would help? I think this is reading the whole NAS RAID 5.

Lastly, if a GPU is installed in the NAS would help, how much for just using basic windows functions like browsing internet? or would this only help true 3D and video performance which I wouldn't use over a RDP connection?

-ML

[Trexx]

Hey ML

3 changes to make life better.

1) You NEED cache for storage in your VS configuration, use write-back (assuming you have a UPS on your QNAP).

2) Store the VM on SSD’s (RAID-1 or higher). You will see better performance due to faster updates for small data blocks used by the VM

3) Update to latest Virtio drivers (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/qu ... index.html)

As for using a GPU... yeah that will help, but haven’t felt a need for basic usage of Windows 10.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MikeLagit]

Thanks Trexx! I have a 256G SSD I can yo hold a couple VMs.

Question though, no matter what I do, it looks like about 68G on that 256G SSD is reserved for system which seems like a ton! Is this QTS duplicating itself across every system drive? Is there any way to prevent that?? Even with only 5% over-provisioning I only have 143G usable.

Capture.JPG

-ML