Solved: Virtual XP on Win 7: XP task mgr shows 90%, Win7 shows 30%

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Rude_Dog

Thread Starter
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
43
Tech Support Guy System Info Utility version 1.0.0.2
OS Version: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate, Service Pack 1, 64 bit
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU M 370 @ 2.40GHz, Intel64 Family 6 Model 37 Stepping 5
Processor Count: 4
RAM: 7920 Mb
Graphics Card: Intel(R) HD Graphics, -327 Mb
Hard Drives: C: Total - 228833 MB, Free - 131178 MB; F: Total - 1430806 MB, Free - 1351895 MB;
Motherboard: TOSHIBA, Portable PC
Antivirus: Microsoft Security Essentials, Updated and Enabled


When I run Virtual Win XP and the program that runs in it is manipulating a database (apparently processor intensive), the virtual XP task manager shows the processor is running ~90%. At the same time, the physical machine's task manager shows the physical processor is running 25-30%. The virtual machine has 3712MB of ram allocated to it, and there isn't much hard drive activity. Anyway, I'm curious if anyone else has run into this bottle neck and if there's anything to do about it. It seems like my physical machine has more resources to put on the virtual machine than it's capable of using or something like that.

Thanks
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2002
Messages
1,716
Are you experiencing any problems running the program? Is it lagging or hanging? I've used VMs 100% of the time for the last 5 years and I've learned not to worry about memory usage, CPU usage or any other oddities unless there's an actual problem.

What are you using for virtualization software? If XP Mode then it's VirtualPC, but there's also VMWare and VirtualBox.
 

Rude_Dog

Thread Starter
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
43
Are you experiencing any problems running the program? Is it lagging or hanging? I've used VMs 100% of the time for the last 5 years and I've learned not to worry about memory usage, CPU usage or any other oddities unless there's an actual problem.
Nope, no problem. I'm just running a piece of software that doesn't seem to work well in Win 7. And, only in the rare times it's doing something processor intensive do I see that mismatch in performance between the virtual machine's processor's capability and the physical machine's capability.

What are you using for virtualization software? If XP Mode then it's VirtualPC, but there's also VMWare and VirtualBox.
Yep. Virtual PC it is. I'll have a look at those others.
 

TerryNet

Terry
Moderator
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
80,466
I don't think DVOM was recommending another virtual machine unless you are having an actual problem. :)

I use VirtualBox (only casually) and have noticed the same type of CPU usage. My assumption has been that only a portion of the CPU capacity is made available to the guest system; for example, if it is allocated 60% of the CPU capacity and uses an actual 30% that will show as 50% usage in the guest machine but in the host will show as 30% plus whatever else the host is using.
 

Rude_Dog

Thread Starter
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
43
Yeah, sorry guys. It's not so much a problem I'm trying to work out as much as it is a curiosity I guess. Don't mean to take up your problem solving BW with my academic pursuits.

Just for grins I upped the priority of the VM items in the physical machine's task manager. Didn't notice that it helped.

Perhaps it's also that the VM software isn't written for taking advantage of multi-core processors? When I run the VM real hard and the VM's task manager shows high percentage CPU, I only see the majority of that activity reflected in one of the cores of the physical machine. Maybe a little extra in a second core, but the other two appear to be just idling along. That would also seem to correlate to the 25-30% figure I mentioned before, 25% being one of 4 cores being fully tasked, and 30% being 1 of 4 cores being fully tasked plus a 2nd core being partially tasked. Perhaps future VMs will boast multi-core Virtual processors that can directly use 2 or more physical cores?
 

fairnooks

Banned
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
5,251
VMWare Player behaves in exactly the same manner; that's how they're designed. I once put a VM on a Q8200, one of the few quad processors that doesn't support virtualization. Long story short, I could only operate the host or the VM but not both or the system would nearly come to a standstill; the two could not share hardware resources.
If you get the VM cpu usage up to 100% for several hours you'll notice some to a lot of slowdown in the host even with virtualization support, but it doesn't bring things to a standstill if the VM is only allowed a certain percentage of the hardware resources, and that's the difference you are seeing reflected.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Top