> Basically, I am curious how the performance works out on Hyper-V. If for
> example, I had a SAS drive setup to host my VM's hard drive, if I
> configured the VM for IDE I would take a performance hit correct? And if
> this is the case, what is the reason to have any VM's use IDE as it is
> possible that later on they could be placed on a faster BUS. The only
> reason I can think is compatability, for example if you cannot use SCSI
> devices in your OS or something. Please enlighten me.
>
> Thanks!
>

> You're incorrect. The actual choice of IDE v. SCSI has nothing whatsoever
> to do with the underlying physical hardware. It is purely a question of
> which drivers are available at that point in the process. Thus you always
> have to choose IDE for a system boot drive, because of how the synthetic
> SCSI driver works. But there is no performance hit at all.
>
> I tend to use IDE for the system drive, and add a SCSI bus and drives VMs
> that need more than 2 drives/VHDs.
>
> You can not choose SCSI for any OS that doesn't have available Integration
> Components, since the drivers won't be available.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "news.microsoft.com" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:%23T8HMh$(email address - cut out)...
>> Basically, I am curious how the performance works out on Hyper-V. If for
>> example, I had a SAS drive setup to host my VM's hard drive, if I
>> configured the VM for IDE I would take a performance hit correct? And if
>> this is the case, what is the reason to have any VM's use IDE as it is
>> possible that later on they could be placed on a faster BUS. The only
>> reason I can think is compatability, for example if you cannot use SCSI
>> devices in your OS or something. Please enlighten me.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>