Multiple Processor Support

Discussion in 'Feature Suggestions' started by Specialmoves, May 31, 2007.

  1. Specialmoves


    A real bonus for us would be multiprocessor support.

    We do a lot of 3D rendering in our company. You just can't have enough processors crunching numbers when you've got a deadline looming.

    The new Intel Macs are a brilliant for us. Most people want to work on a Mac but most of our rendering is in 3D Studio Max (PC only). Overnight we boot our machines into bootcamp and get a massive boost. The 8 core macs are awesome render nodes.

    During the day we're running Parallels on these machines. We've found that most people can have 1 or 2 virtual machines running 3D Studio Max and rendering hard without too much slowdown.

    What I'd really like to be able to do however is decide how many processors a given virtual machine can use (maybe with a slider like you can assign RAM).

    I realise we're a bit of an edge case but I'm sure others would benefit from multiple processors too.

  2. bgose


    I agree, I need to have at least 2 processors for the 3D stuff I do on SolidWorks. I would like to have 64bit support as well (VMware does it currently for XPx64). I hate BootCamp because I have to duplicate all my e-mail, browser bookmarks, etc.

    My ultimate goal would be to "split" my computer in half (2 processors + 2 gig RAM for Mac, 2 processors + 2 gig RAM for Parallels/windows). This would be a tidy solution for me and the rest of the SolidWorks community running on MacPros.

  3. PThibodeau


    Agreed. The difference between applications running natively in OS X and Windows via Parallels is significant. It would be tremendously useful to assign multiple processors to the VM for CPU intensive tasks.
  4. Andrew @ Parallels

    Andrew @ Parallels Parallels Developers

    This feature is under development now. It expected that it will be included into one of free 3.x updates.
  5. marcdraco


    Even dual-processor (OK, proper multiprocessor) support would be a boon right now. That would at least make Parallels comparable to VMWare in speed tests. I hate all this bleating about how much faster VMWare is when it's plainly a case that it has more cores to work on.
  6. dtempleton


    Not an edge case at all. Most folks to *have to* run a windows box are doing it for access to specific programs, usually processor intensive. We would love to use our beautiful Mac Hardware to datacrunch 24/7. Please, please put this on the todo list. I concur that specifying the number of procs to use, or having a nice-style table would be best.

  7. Eru Ithildur

    Eru Ithildur

    In the 3.x free updates. I like the sound of that.
  8. Olivier

    Olivier Kilo Poster

    What most people forget about is that Windows installs **different** kernels when installing on a single processor or on a multi-processor system. A VM re-installation from scratch may well be recommend to switch the VM from single to dual processor. Also the multi-processor kernel (which can run with a single processor though) is slightly slower than the single-processor kernel (better have a very good implementation such that the small penalty of the kernel doesn't add up to some other penalty which would in the end mean a slower solution). Finally there are the licensing restrictions of Microsoft. Everybody should check what their Windows XP license says regarding the number of processors allowed in the machine... I'm sure 2 is ok. I really doubt 4 is ok (at least it wasn't at the origin).
  9. jfritz_drfritz


    Xp seems to run fine on an 8 core with bootcamp. Windows Xp does apparently have a restriction to 2 sockets though. My understanding is that this is a software limitation not a licensing limitation
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2007
  10. maztec


    Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

    Can we get some type of timeline on this? What is Parallels approximate roadmap for 3.x?

    If VMWare ever gets around the installation of nasty dll's that get detected by my test taking software and subsequently banned from the network *grrr* - then I'd swap in a heartbeat.

    There's no reason that plugging in my USB Mic should pop one processors usage from 7% to 99% .. and my temp from 50F to 80F or loud fan :( Honestly, I should explore what type of liability Parallels would have for melting my laptop ;). I should ask one of my law profesors :\
  11. Eru Ithildur

    Eru Ithildur

    Uhh... Why would you want multiple processors for Parallels when you are using a laptop... Are you doing lots of floating point calculations? Usually you are best off allocating a single processor of a C2D laptop to Parallels if you even have the choice.

    Sure, the theory is cool, but in reality it just drags preformance.
  12. warnergt

    warnergt Bit Poster

    By "2 sockets," do you mean two cores?

    I just did an experiment with WinXp on an 8 core with bootcamp. I ran eight separate CPU intensive simulations in eight different Cygwin windows. All 8 cores were running at 100%.

    I really could use this capability with Parallels. I need at least two but preferably four cores available for WinXp.

    When will we see that multiprocessor support?
  13. jfritz_drfritz


    Mac Pro has 2 four core processors. Each one fits into a socket
  14. thomascompass


    What's the latest on this?

    I have a MacPro and have been using Windows Media Encoder 9 for creating WMVs, and I watch my core monitor still seeing only one of the 4 being utilized. My updates say that my parallels is up to date. Has the multiple processor support been implemented yet? Or is there a beta that is using it?
  15. dpfels


    I would like to add my voice to this. The ability to run multiple cores and 64 bit code will become crucial for me in the next 6 months. I just purchased Parallels Desktop to run on an 8-core, Dual Xeon Mac pro and I am disturbed to learn that it only supports one core.

    So far, the interface is great, and I love the product. I was able to get the whole thing up and running in an hour or two (most of the delay was due to trying to use an older version of Parallels without updating-my bad. However, since I plan to use this system for advanced image-analysis software in a laboratory environment, speed is crucial. The software package is very processor intensive, and the use of all 8 cores will make a big difference in my work speed. Additionally, addressing more memory would be a big help.

    Any ideas of the time scale for these key features (weeks, months, years)? If the time horizon is very long, I may need to consider the competitor's package

  16. fuzzyman


    I run a new Mac Pro, with a 64bit Vista bootcamp install and multiple monitors.

    Suppoort for 64bit OSs, multiple-processors and true multiple monitor support are all high on my wishlist for Parallels.
  17. iampedro


    I would also like that for the workstaion program.
  18. Streetwise


    Update to version 3 multi-core?

    Has the free update to v3 that was mentioned a year ago in this thread come out yet?

  19. John@Parallels


    We are definitely planning Multicore support in Parallels Desktop ver 4, probably this will also will be added in one of the updates for version 3
  20. Relan

    Relan Parallels Developers

    I think this is rather licensing limitation because from the point of view of OS there is no difference between multi-core and multi-CPU SMP. But it can use this info as a hint for better CPU resources scheduling. BTW, we emulate one multi-core CPU, so all Windows editions will be able to use as many virtual processors as specified in VM configurations.

Share This Page