1
I am running a 64bit Debian guest on a 64bit Windows 8.1 host with vt-x and Virtualbox v5.1.26. I have a Truecrypt volume on the host where I store all my private data, which is mounted at logon. For simplicity I would like to store my VM and any future VMs here as well (as opposed to encrypting each one and having to enter a password whenever they are launched).
My question is, will this put an unnecessary load on my cpu? What would the performance difference be between:
-An encrypted VM and
-An unencrypted VM running from inside an encrypted TC container?
Also is there any other reason why this might be a really bad/dangerous idea?
Splack
Posted 2017-09-14T18:57:58.040
Reputation: 21
Interesting. May I ask, suggested where? I've looked through the VirtualBox documentation and asked on the forum to no avail. – Splack – 2017-09-14T19:14:21.903
"May I ask, suggested where?" - Nope; I withdraw my comment. Don't feel like attempting defend my statement. – Ramhound – 2017-09-14T19:19:36.010
Which solution is best? There should not be much of a difference, but it depends more on how the software behaves on your hardware. You will have to test and see. – harrymc – 2017-09-14T19:34:29.647
I have routinely run unencrypted VMs VirtualBox VMs (WinXP, Win7 and Ubuntu) kept on LUKS-encrypted disks on the host (Ubuntu 14.04 and 16.04) and never had performance problems. Apps on the VM (Eclipse IDE, for instance) run as fast as the native application on the same encrypted drive. I never tried to opposite but seeing the processor use I could ascribe to encryption, my gut feeling is that it is a better solution than having encrypted VMs on a clear disk. – xenoid – 2017-09-14T20:50:29.527
Sounds good. I am currently testing both ways and haven't yet noticed any difference. Have you ever had the host machine crash while the encrypted drive was mounted with guest running? – Splack – 2017-09-18T17:30:21.163