Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm not sure whether this sounds stupid or lazy, but I'm really not sure.

I have a problem with the performance of a VM setup (2008R2-64bit Hyper-V running a 2003R2-32bit Windows server) and I'd like to see whether the disk is the problem.

I want to time a C++ build. It will take x minutes on the real hardware and x+y minutes on the single VM running on this same hardware. (And, y is way too large, hence this question.) I guess I would want to run perfmon during each build and time some counters and then compare the results.

  • Should I run perfmon on the host or on the guest (for the build in the VM)?
  • Which counter(s) should I look at?
  • Should I consider anything besides perfmon?
share|improve this question

I'd say the most relevant counters are:

  • Disk Bytes/s
  • Current Disk Queue Length
  • Avg. Disk Queue Length

Benchmarking the disks (both virtual and physical) with ATTO may be worth a try as well.

share|improve this answer
Acutally no, the only relevant is pretty much "seconds/IO". The moment that goes up, the disc is overloaded - the rest needs a LOT of interpretation, this one tells you when the responsiveness goes down. For example - how big is too big for avg queue length? Depends on discs ;) I know a SAN that had 26x256 for queue size without problems. But Seconds/IO (which should be 0.00x) tells you in one number when things get bad. – TomTom Sep 4 '12 at 12:13

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.