I read a discussion the other day about a laptop review as well as comments about running virtual machines on a Solid State Disk (SSD).
The two comments that made me think were (to paraphrase):
1) “I heard running virtual machines can cause issues with your SSD”
2) “I don’t notice a large performance difference between running a virtual machine on an SSD and a normal disk”
These comments were of interest to me since I run my primary virtual machines off my SSD disk. Am I potentially trashing it for no performance improvement?
I put together my own speed test based on a few disks I have lying around.
The contenders are:
Disk | Connection | Comment |
Intel X-25M SSD (160GB) | SATA | My Solid State Disk in a laptop caddy |
Western Digital 7,200 RPM 2.5” (200 GB) | E-SATA | Generic external enclosure |
Western Digital Passport (1TB) | USB 3 | My latest external disk |
Western Digital Passport (80GB) | USB 2 | My first external disk, still going strong after 6 years |

Disclaimer
This test is definitely not exhaustive, and applies only to Hyper-V and my particular laptop configuration.
In addition, only some general aspects of the newly released Windows 8 (Developer Preview). The comparisons for the operations that interest you may be quite different. The comparisons I made were just to determine if there was a trend between the underlying disks.
A better test would do similar comparisons between Virtual Box, VMWare, Virtual PC etc.
Finally, the SSD had the advantage of being directly connected to the main SATA bus. I could have tested a normal disk in the caddy as well, but I felt e-SATA should be nearly as fast (if not as fast).
Test Setup
I have created a 20GB Hyper-V disk file with Windows 8 installed. The same file is copied to each of the disks above.
The Hyper-V machine for each has 4 processors with 4092MB of RAM. The configurations are identical.
Just to make things fair, I tested each machine twice by shutting down and then starting again.
The laptop was a Lenovo W520 with an i7 CPU and 16GB of RAM. The operating system was Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard Edition.
Nothing was running except for the Hyper-V process itself, and only the machine being tested run running.

Testing
I just tested and timed some simple operations in Windows 8 that anyone can do out of the box.
Results
The results in seconds are below:
Test | Intel X-25-M | WD e-Sata | WD Passport USB3 | WD Passport USB2 |
Windows Startup |
10 |
21 |
26 |
35 |
Windows Login |
5 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
Launch Visual Studio 11 |
6 |
24 |
26 |
36 |
Build basic HTML5 solution in Visual Studio |
1 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
Launch Expression Blend 5 |
2 |
8 |
15 |
19 |
Conclusion
There is a considerable speed advantage to using a Solid State Disk for running your Hyper-V virtual machines.
e-Sata still proved to be slightly faster than USB 3.
Surprisingly, USB 2 was not extremely slow compared to its USB 3 successor.
What Next?
I recognize that by using my SSD to run virtual machines, I am potentially reducing the life of the disk quite considerably.
At the time of writing an Intel SSD with 160GB is retailing at USD $300. Therefore the productivity advantage (for me) seems to outweigh the cost of the disk itself.
I will still run some machines (such as Active Directory and betas) on a ‘normal’ disk.
I’m also likely to use USB 3 more from now on. Although my e-Sata disks are a little faster, I find the connection more temperamental as well as needing two cables (data + power) which is inconvenient.