7 ms·

Anecdotally, Using NFS with Vagrant / Virtualbox instead of the default Virtualbox shared folder speeds up things drastically. Add the following line in your V

Anecdotally, Using NFS with Vagrant / Virtualbox instead of the default Virtualbox shared folder speeds up things drastically. Add the following line in your Vagrantfile to test it out: config.vm.share_folder "/vagrant", "/vagrant", "./", :nfs => true Also, tweaking the DNS settings seems to help: vb.customize ["modifyvm", :id, "--natdnshostresolver1", "off"] vb.customize ["modifyvm", :id, "--natdnsproxy1", "off"]

bdon 13y ago
Author here. Good point, i'll repeat these measurements with NFS instead and add that to the blog post. EDIT: Updated the post, NFS erases most of the difference between VirtualBox and VMWare Fusion. Nice!
- joevandyk 13y ago
  Did you test vmware fusion with shared folder?
  - bdon 13y ago
    Yes, VMWare Fusion was tested using shared folders instead of NFS, which are considerably faster than VirtualBox's.
    - joevandyk 13y ago
      Hm, I've seen the opposite. I think others have as well. http://vagrant.1086180.n5.nabble.com/Shared-folders-slow-using-VMWare-provider-as-well-as-VirtualBox-td935.html http://vagrant.1086180.n5.nabble.com/Shared-folders-slow-usi...
      - bdon 13y ago
        Thanks for the tip, I found that using NFS with Fusion shaved a second or two off app boot time. Updated the post with measurements and the link you suggested.
runamok 13y ago
Just an additional data point: NFS does not work when you use vagrant with windows as your host OS. Things like git status when run from within the Ubuntu VM was something like 25 to 50 times slower (IIRC 7 seconds vs. 5 minutes) then when I ran it from git bash in windows.
- clippit 13y ago
  Actually git status is the most annoying part when I'm using Vagrant with Windows. At last I could only use git in Windows to commit my code.
- rizalp 13y ago
  Windows use SMB to share files and folders to the network. We can mount that shares using CIFS. There's already some data posted a huge benefit when using CIFS instead of Virtualbox Shared folder http://www.wilsolutions.com.br/content/cifs-virtualbox-shared-folder-alternative http://www.wilsolutions.com.br/content/cifs-virtualbox-share...
martinml 13y ago
Anybody knows if there is an alternative to NFS, VBox's shared folders and Samba? The first doesn't exist in Windows, and the other two are slow and buggy.
- WestCoastJustin 13y ago
  Doesn't look like it. The Vagrant docs only list the default /vagrant mount and NFS [1]. [1] http://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/synced-folders/index.html http://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/synced-folders/index.html
- casey_lang 13y ago
  In my experience, OSX's implementation of NFS is buggy as well. It's not uncommon for my NFS server to simply give up and stop responding to requests from the vm. Trying out Fusion's share has been on my todo list for a while. I'm a little sad to hear its performance is poor. I've also found that processes like Guard which watch files for changes aren't properly notified. Even with these issues, moving all my development to VMs created by Vagrant has been incredibly useful.
  - cstejerean 13y ago
    The performance of Fusion looked pretty good in that comparison. What do you mean its performance is poor?

bdon 13y ago

Author here. Good point, i'll repeat these measurements with NFS instead and add that to the blog post. EDIT: Updated the post, NFS erases most of the difference between VirtualBox and VMWare Fusion. Nice!

joevandyk 13y ago
Did you test vmware fusion with shared folder?
- bdon 13y ago
  Yes, VMWare Fusion was tested using shared folders instead of NFS, which are considerably faster than VirtualBox's.
  - joevandyk 13y ago
    Hm, I've seen the opposite. I think others have as well. http://vagrant.1086180.n5.nabble.com/Shared-folders-slow-using-VMWare-provider-as-well-as-VirtualBox-td935.html http://vagrant.1086180.n5.nabble.com/Shared-folders-slow-usi...
    - bdon 13y ago
      Thanks for the tip, I found that using NFS with Fusion shaved a second or two off app boot time. Updated the post with measurements and the link you suggested.

runamok 13y ago

Just an additional data point: NFS does not work when you use vagrant with windows as your host OS. Things like git status when run from within the Ubuntu VM was something like 25 to 50 times slower (IIRC 7 seconds vs. 5 minutes) then when I ran it from git bash in windows.

clippit 13y ago
Actually git status is the most annoying part when I'm using Vagrant with Windows. At last I could only use git in Windows to commit my code.
rizalp 13y ago
Windows use SMB to share files and folders to the network. We can mount that shares using CIFS. There's already some data posted a huge benefit when using CIFS instead of Virtualbox Shared folder http://www.wilsolutions.com.br/content/cifs-virtualbox-shared-folder-alternative http://www.wilsolutions.com.br/content/cifs-virtualbox-share...

martinml 13y ago

Anybody knows if there is an alternative to NFS, VBox's shared folders and Samba? The first doesn't exist in Windows, and the other two are slow and buggy.

WestCoastJustin 13y ago
Doesn't look like it. The Vagrant docs only list the default /vagrant mount and NFS [1]. [1] http://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/synced-folders/index.html http://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/synced-folders/index.html
casey_lang 13y ago
In my experience, OSX's implementation of NFS is buggy as well. It's not uncommon for my NFS server to simply give up and stop responding to requests from the vm. Trying out Fusion's share has been on my todo list for a while. I'm a little sad to hear its performance is poor. I've also found that processes like Guard which watch files for changes aren't properly notified. Even with these issues, moving all my development to VMs created by Vagrant has been incredibly useful.
- cstejerean 13y ago
  The performance of Fusion looked pretty good in that comparison. What do you mean its performance is poor?