![]() Just to be clear, the time it takes once the app is clicked and when the splash screen appears is 17 seconds. I'm guessing on the first launch, once an App Store app has been approved by OCSP, it doesn't make that check again during that session and is why it launches normally after the 1st try? (just guessing, I have no idea.) So, it does seem something is wrong with the App Store apps at first launch of session. Surprisingly, all the apps launch 2-3 seconds every time. Someone on another forum mentioned something about OCSP and App Store apps, so I decided to try an experiment - I downloaded and installed trial versions of the three Affinity apps directly from the Affinity site. 4 seconds, consistently for all the apps. I then compared launch time of the same App Store apps on my Intel Mac. Tested again and again with same results, each time rebooting and then launching apps. On the first launch, each of the apps takes 17 seconds to launch. I closed and relaunched and launch time was normal (2-3 seconds). Once installed, upon launch, I noticed a very long delay before the app appeared. Very first thing I installed was the three Affinity apps I purchased from the App Store. If (copy_from_user(&mFunc, arg, sizeof(struct monitor_functions_def_t) * MONFUNC_COUNT))įor (i = 0 i iData.Moni torFuncs = (monitor_funct_t)mFunc.fId For example:Įxtracted from parallels-lin/data/drivers/drv_main/ioctl s.c I have not completely analyzed it, but have found a few things that trouble me pretty deeply. So I downloaded the linux tarball to see what I could learn about how this amazing new hypervisor works.įortunately for me, the source code to some of the kernel modules was included in the tarball. This made no sense to me as a real hypervisor runs underneath all of your full OSs including the so called primary OS. I was reading this here – a post by user: 10190 at MacSlashīut Parallels’ seems pretty dangerous I was curious about how it can claim to be a Hypervisor based system but not require restarting after installation. Under what should Parallels be categorised: a) Hypervisor, b) virtualisation app c) or what ?Īre there security concerns for the “mother” OS, (in this case the Mac OS X) ? While server consolidation and RAS considerations have driven demand for virtualization in the UNIX space for the last several years, the primary factor driving demand for virtualization on the desktop is cross-platform compatibility, and that is (remarkably) a very recent phenomenon. The modern PC OS, like the UNIX systems before it, includes support for concurrent programs (or multitasking), so the need for virtualization on the PC hasn’t materialized until recently. It handled timesharing between concurrently running programs. What it meant to be an OS back then was a completely different thing, and really the hypervisor was the OS of the mainframe. Virtualization was the fundamental concept behind the mainframe. ![]() ![]() Virtualization is a really old concept that has taken its sweet time to reach our personal computers. This is often used for server consolidation, security, and manageability. OS-level virtualization (OpenVZ, VServer, Zones, Jails) offers the least amount of flexibility, since all guests share a common kernelspace, but has the absolute minimum of overhead. VMWare and Parallels might begin to exploit paravirtualization concepts on machines with such hardware. ![]() Paravirtualization (Xen) offers almost as much flexibility with a significant reduction in overhead, but guests must be specially patched unless you have the new AMD/Intel CPUs with virtualization support. The simplest and most flexible, but with some significant performance overhead. It handles resource isolation such that each guest thinks it has unfettered access to the hardware. The hypervisor is the central component of a hardware virtualization solution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |