Guest OZ (XP pro) running slow after upgrade to 5160

M

mac123456

Bit poster
Guest OS (XP pro) running slow after upgrade to 5160

Product: Parallels Desktop for Mac 3.x
Build number: 5160
Host OS: Mac OS X 10.4.x Tiger
Guest OS/Remote OS: Windows XP Professional
Guest OS amount of memory: 1500 mb
Type of computer: MacBook Pro
Computer RAM: 2 - 4GB
Description: Hi Thanks for helping.

I was able to run XP Pro on build 4560 perfectly. Now after upgrading to the 5160 build it runs w/ 1sec lag.

I have tried fully uninstalling and reinstalling 4560 and then 5160.
I also have fully uninstalled and reinstalled 5160.
Throughout all of this my VM was completely shutdown.
My cache is set to be optimized for virtual machine performance.
My memory preference is set to "Enable Virtual Memory Preallocation" and I didn`t change the RAM amount after upgrading.

The problem seams to start after I upgrade Parallel Tools in XP because before I installed the upgrade I tried a few speed tests and they ran perfectly.

What do I need to do so that I can get my machine running normal, anybody know?
 
Last edited:
I have the same problem: very annoying

Hi,

I have exactly the same problem. As a loyal Parallels user I duly upgrade to the latest builds. However, with the last one I wish I hadn't.

Can anybody at Parallels shed some light on this issue please?

Looking forward to a new build with this problem fixed very soon!

Cheers
 
Guest too slow

Hello.

I have the same configuration and... the same problem.
I can't work with v3
Is there a solution ? (maybe back to v2.5)
Please help us before we switch to Fusion.

Thank's

Dominique
 
Hello,

mac123456, try to cut your Guest OS amount of memory down. It should help.

Best Regards,
Alicia.
 
Build 5160 is definitely consuming too many resources and crashing my system.

After running a few more tests (playing around with reinstalls) I really am thinking that the slowness is due to a configuration with P-Tools. My systems runs perfect until P-tools installs the new version. After it installs I turn it off (via right click on P-tools task bar icon > exit) and system runs perfectly.

It might have something to do with how the new build shares resources with the Mac OS.

I have even had the "blue screen of death" come up on XP and restarting the VM (This is while running small programs like word and excel). Then two other separate issues the mac side freezes while the VM is running. Once, I let it run overnight thinking that it would do its thing and catch up. I gave up after 15 hours of waiting and had to do a hard-reboot.

I also on occasions get an error when starting up the VM that Parallels can't start the VM due to a shortage of memory please select the "Enable vitual memory preallocation" when the option is already selected. (I uncheck it, restart Parallels, check the option, restart Parallels and the VM starts up.

I have enough memory shared to the VM. You can read all of my settings in the first post to this Thread.

Build 5160 is definitely consuming too many resources and crashing my system.

Can anyone shed some more light on this issue, please?

Thanks
 
mac123456, currently you should be able to work around the issue by lowering the amount of memory allocated to the particular VM. Starting Parallels Desktop right after the Mac restart often also helps.

Best Regards,
Alicia.
 
I will try your suggestion my next availible oppertunity. Although I don't want to make my XP machine run slower just to make it faster. I use XP everyday for work and need as much spead as possible.

I am really interested as to the "why" this is happening. The 5160 readme says that it can handle upto 2gb of ram. I have 4 gb availble. 4560 ran fine with 1500 mb of shared ram. Why can't 5160 do the same if I don't change the amount of ram to be greater tha 1500 mb? Could you reveal some of your parallels wisdom? I would like to be smart about how to use paralells so I can avoid anymore problems that would arise.
 
Parallels Tools

Hi,

Thanks first of all for replying Alicia.

I keep having the same problems, however. I also have the feeling too much resources are being used of my MacBook Pro with 3 GB memory, 1.5 for the guest OS. Cutting the guest OS down to 1 GB has 0 effect.

But... closing the Parallels Tools 100% fixes my speed problems. Has something been changed in the Parallels architecture with sharing the clipboard between the OS's? This does need to be addressed in a next version; it is also very easy to reproduce and test by your Parallels QA team.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Remco
 
Tried lowering the Ram

Alicia,
Ok I tried lowering the Ram in two seperate instances, before and then after upgrading to the new 5160 build. No change, still slow.

I put my RAM back to the orginal 1500 mb.

Since it is after the new p-tools that my VM runs slow, I tried custom reinstalling the p-tools and chose not to install profiles, since that seemed to be the tool with the most improvements since the previous build. Still no change in the VM speed. Then I tried unistalling the 5160 p-tools and installing the 4560 p-tools (this is all with using the 5160 build). And the VM still ran just as slow.

Do you Alica or anyone have any other ideas? I appreciate the help.


In reply to Alicia's message:
mac123456, currently you should be able to work around the issue by lowering the amount of memory allocated to the particular VM. Starting Parallels Desktop right after the Mac restart often also helps.

Best Regards,
Alicia.
 
Eru,
I tried setting the RAM to 768 before upgrading to 5160 again and you were right it ran faster with 5160 P-Tools running. The VM runs a half sec faster, but was still half a second slower than the 4560 build so I tried the 5160 with 512mb,1024 mb, 1280mb and 1536mb. And still you were exactly right 768 is the sweet spot.
Throughout all of these RAM test the os was perfect if p-tools was not running.

I am still aiming to get 5160 to be at the same speed or faster than 4560.

Anyother ideas? Is there some feature in the 5160 build that I can turn off to make the VM run faster?

Has Parallels heard of anymore cases like this?

Thanks for the help.
-Mac123456




IN REPLY TO:

Eru Ithildur
Senior Member


Join: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,193 Try setting the RAM to 768 MB, that seems to be the sweet-spot for XP. Also, have you tried re-installing your tools?
 
Oh Eru, I forgot.

Yes, I have reinstalled p-tools several times and have even tried using 4560 p-tools in the 5160 build and still no change.
 
Why less memory?

I run multiple compilers and MANY apps in my guest OS simultaneously... I can't imagine that 768MB of RAM would speed things up. If really true, then what is the justification for ever needing more than 768MB of RAM for a PC running WinXP??? You're going to just end up doing a lot of memory page swapping into virtual memory.

Independent of this, and back to the thread's main pt, PC Tools 5160 has problems that didn't exist before. I hope that you are looking into a fix & not simply touting this slow down as a new feature.

Paul
 
Same sluggishness here

Just upgraded and installed P-tools. The first thing I noticed was the overall sluggishness of the Windows XP OS. Reduce my RAM to 768 and I think it's even worse. Version 3 has been out awhile so I thought these kinds of bugs would have been eliminated. Please add me to the list of people having this problem. No wonder they warned me so many times about not being able to go back after "upgrading" the Virtual Machine. But I trusted Parallels based upon their previous performance.

Build 5160
2.16 GHz Intel Core Duo Macbook Pro
2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

Any of the P-Tools that I can disable or uninstall to improve the machine performance?
 
This isn't happening on all machines. On my IMAC 2gb with Windows XP, 5160 really speeds up the machines with no slow down whatever. Maybe peculiar to Mac Pro?
 
Hello all,

answering your question about lessening the amount of memory allocated to the VM. While working, MacOS allots some piece of RAM to every application. But these pieces are conventionally arranged in different parts of RAM, not one after another. So, when we run our VM, it needs all amount of memory, that you allocated to it, to be taken from RAM in one piece, and if that amount is too big, there won't bу spare RAM piece for it. Therefore the the VM starts to act slow.

Best Regards,
Alicia.
 
mac123456 said:
Eru,
I tried setting the RAM to 768 before upgrading to 5160 again and you were right it ran faster with 5160 P-Tools running. The VM runs a half sec faster, but was still half a second slower than the 4560 build so I tried the 5160 with 512mb,1024 mb, 1280mb and 1536mb. And still you were exactly right 768 is the sweet spot.
Throughout all of these RAM test the os was perfect if p-tools was not running.

I am still aiming to get 5160 to be at the same speed or faster than 4560.

Anyother ideas? Is there some feature in the 5160 build that I can turn off to make the VM run faster?

Has Parallels heard of anymore cases like this?

Thanks for the help.
-Mac123456
Click to expand...

Hmm... How much proccessor is Parallels using both inside the VM and on OS X?
 
dakndak said:
I run multiple compilers and MANY apps in my guest OS simultaneously... I can't imagine that 768MB of RAM would speed things up. If really true, then what is the justification for ever needing more than 768MB of RAM for a PC running WinXP??? You're going to just end up doing a lot of memory page swapping into virtual memory.

Independent of this, and back to the thread's main pt, PC Tools 5160 has problems that didn't exist before. I hope that you are looking into a fix & not simply touting this slow down as a new feature.

Paul
Click to expand...

Well, running multiple compilers is an exception, most, read most typical users, applications don't actually ever bump XPs RAM usage above ~600 MB. I state this as a fact because developers, like you, identify the issue quickly if it is a problem for them and they are worth their salt. You seem to be. Most users are home or small office types who will never hit the ceiling of little RAM like you would hit in five minutes of usage.

I think the issue has been acknowledged, one of the other members identifyed a memory leak on some, but not all computers. It can be remedied somewhat by force quitting the Parallels Tools Center process from Task Manager and then relaunching Parallels Tools.
 
I am glad it isn't just me

Question 1:
How, and by how much does it hurt parallels to Force Quit it while a VM is running? I would assume that it does hurt Parallels and any programs and files (saved or not) in the VM.

I have to be honest that I rely on parallels running the VM smoothly for the IT work that I do. It is one thing to push the VM and the Mac hard enough to make it crash by running a ton of programs but, all the instances that I have been talking about have been immediately happening right after I install Parallels + P-Tools. There is no way that a VM running idle with 1500 mb allocated should slow or even crash an Intel dual core macbook pro maxed out on all fronts video card + RAM.

Question 2:
I can understand that as soon as I turn on Parallels that it reserves 1500mb of RAM but, it should not be using it all right from the get-go.
Can you tell me what changed in P-Tools from build 4560 to 5160 to demand so much from the VM system that it would run so slow?

Thanks,


Eru Ithildur said:
Well, running multiple compilers is an exception, most, read most typical users, applications don't actually ever bump XPs RAM usage above ~600 MB. I state this as a fact because developers, like you, identify the issue quickly if it is a problem for them and they are worth their salt. You seem to be. Most users are home or small office types who will never hit the ceiling of little RAM like you would hit in five minutes of usage.

I think the issue has been acknowledged, one of the other members identifyed a memory leak on some, but not all computers. It can be remedied somewhat by force quitting the Parallels Tools Center process from Task Manager and then relaunching Parallels Tools.
Click to expand...
 
For question 1:
Well, I don't know how much force quitting hurts by the technical reasons of how exactly things are virtualized, but I would raise the flag that there can be possible disk corruption if something gets 'bumped' in the middle of a write. Furthermore, it is like just 'pulling the plug' on a normal box on top of stopping the virtualization part way.

Question 2:
As I mentioned, some have reported a memory leak... Have you tried force quitting the process I mentioned to see if that speeds things up? If so, we found the problem, if not, we need to keep looking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top