re: Screencast and Q&A: Hyper-V integration components Disk and Network behaviour

Netweb — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:26:53 GMT

James,

I would take a look at Tony's latest post regarding the whole SCSI/IDE thing...

The new post and Tony's previous post along with John's post from October when all meshed together is a trick and a half to get your head around.

http://blogs.msdn.com/tvoellm/archive/2008/01/02/hyper-v-scsi-vs-ide-do-you-really-need-an-ide-and-scsi-drive-for-best-performance.aspx

Cheers,

Stephen

re: Screencast and Q&A: Hyper-V integration components Disk and Network behaviour

jamesone — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:38:24 GMT

Hi Stephen.

I've been in conversation with both Tony and John Howard. The gist is that yes, SCSI is faster, but not *much* faster. If a workload needs to be spread over multiple disks then then it makes sense for the data to go on SCSI.

There's a level of workload which can manage on a single IDE disk, and a level of workload which must have multiple disks. Between those is band of "can't manage on one IDE but could manage on one SCSI" with VS 2005 that was quite a broad band. On Hyper-V it would vanishingly small - so the team haven't worried about enabling support for it.

Screencast and Q&amp;A: Hyper-V integration components Disk and Network behaviour

re: Screencast and Q&A: Hyper-V integration components Disk and Network behaviour

re: Screencast and Q&A: Hyper-V integration components Disk and Network behaviour

Screencast and Q&A: Hyper-V integration components Disk and Network behaviour