Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. 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

The general rule of thumb is to host the VM on a separate drive than the host. Is this necessary with an SSD drive? I'm looking to get a 120gb SSD for my mbp to run Windows 7 VM's as well as OS X. Any other tips are appreciated.

share|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

While not necessary per se, anything you can do to put the VM disk I/O on a different channel will make a big imptovement. Especially if the VM uses the disk a great deal. I would suggest a drive in the optical drive bay or a USB 3.0/eSATA external

share|improve this answer
It's only an improvement if the host I/O load is already high. On most current SSDs, this isn't going to be the case, and there's plenty of IOPS to spare for a VM (or two, or more) without a significant slowdown in the host. – afrazier May 31 '11 at 16:39

SSds get their performance from a lot of internal parallelism. But in order to make use of it they need a relatively heavy IO load. On desktops most good SSDs are absolutely starved for IO load. Adding a VM will not hurt performance at all. At least not until you start moving enough data to saturate the SATA connection.

share|improve this answer

As you say, it is a rule of thumb. Why not run it as you'd like and if performance is an issue, make adjustments.

share|improve this answer

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.