Hi
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
- Toralf
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
Toralf Lund writes:
Hi
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS6.5#head-eb6bb9abad0158d05...
On 04/12/2013 12:39, Lars Hecking wrote:
Toralf Lund writes:
Hi
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
I'm using Virtualbox 4.2 from the repository at virtualbox.org, currently on 4.2.20 I think.
Upgraded both Host and 15 or so guests to Centos 6.5 recently. No obvious issues, all my guests are console only.
On 04/12/2013 13:16, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 04/12/2013 12:39, Lars Hecking wrote:
Toralf Lund writes:
Hi
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
I'm using Virtualbox 4.2 from the repository at virtualbox.org, currently on 4.2.20 I think.
Upgraded both Host and 15 or so guests to Centos 6.5 recently. No obvious issues, all my guests are console only.
Forgot to mention my host is headless too...
On 04/12/13 14:18, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 04/12/2013 13:16, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 04/12/2013 12:39, Lars Hecking wrote:
Toralf Lund writes:
Hi
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
I'm using Virtualbox 4.2 from the repository at virtualbox.org, currently on 4.2.20 I think.
Upgraded both Host and 15 or so guests to Centos 6.5 recently. No obvious issues, all my guests are console only.
Forgot to mention my host is headless too...
OK.
32-bit or 64-bit?
- Toralf
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
Toralf Lund writes:
Hi
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
I'm using Virtualbox 4.2 from the repository at virtualbox.org, currently on 4.2.20 I think.
Upgraded both Host and 15 or so guests to Centos 6.5 recently. No obvious issues, all my guests are console only.
Forgot to mention my host is headless too...
OK.
32-bit or 64-bit?
All are 64-bit.
On 05/12/13 15:01, Giles Coochey wrote:
Toralf Lund writes:
Hi
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
I'm using Virtualbox 4.2 from the repository at virtualbox.org, currently on 4.2.20 I think.
Upgraded both Host and 15 or so guests to Centos 6.5 recently. No obvious issues, all my guests are console only.
Forgot to mention my host is headless too...
OK.
32-bit or 64-bit?
All are 64-bit.
OK. So it's my system.
- Toralf
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On 06/12/13 01:08, Toralf Lund wrote:
OK. So it's my system.
- Toralf
Not necessarily! I wouldn't worry too much about VirtualBox 4.3 - it is terribly hosed; I suggest you downgrade back to 4.2.20 which, like Giles, I've been using without any adverse effects for a while. I too run a headless server but make use of VRDE where I need to access a Windows host!
Cheers, ak.
On 06/12/13 04:15, Anthony K wrote:
On 06/12/13 01:08, Toralf Lund wrote:
OK. So it's my system.
- Toralf
Not necessarily! I wouldn't worry too much about VirtualBox 4.3 - it is terribly hosed; I suggest you downgrade back to 4.2.20 which,
Problem is, I also tried a couple of different releases of 4.2.20, with the same result...
like Giles, I've been using without any adverse effects for a while. I too run a headless server but make use of VRDE where I need to access a Windows host!
Maybe headless works, and the normal GUI startup doesn't? Actually, I VBoxHeadless does seem to start, but I'm not quite sure how to verify that it works the way it should.
(
[toralf@osl-71465 ~]$ VirtualBox -startvm Win7partition Segmentation fault [toralf@osl-71465 ~]$ VirtualBox Segmentation fault [toralf@osl-71465 ~]$ VBoxHeadless -startvm Win7partition Oracle VM VirtualBox Headless Interface 4.3.4 (C) 2008-2013 Oracle Corporation All rights reserved.
)
- Toralf
Cheers, ak.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On 06/12/2013 08:18, Toralf Lund wrote:
On 06/12/13 04:15, Anthony K wrote:
On 06/12/13 01:08, Toralf Lund wrote:
OK. So it's my system.
- Toralf
Not necessarily! I wouldn't worry too much about VirtualBox 4.3 - it is terribly hosed; I suggest you downgrade back to 4.2.20 which,
Problem is, I also tried a couple of different releases of 4.2.20, with the same result...
like Giles, I've been using without any adverse effects for a while. I too run a headless server but make use of VRDE where I need to access a Windows host!
Maybe headless works, and the normal GUI startup doesn't? Actually, I VBoxHeadless does seem to start, but I'm not quite sure how to verify that it works the way it should.
(
[toralf@osl-71465 ~]$ VirtualBox -startvm Win7partition Segmentation fault [toralf@osl-71465 ~]$ VirtualBox Segmentation fault [toralf@osl-71465 ~]$ VBoxHeadless -startvm Win7partition Oracle VM VirtualBox Headless Interface 4.3.4 (C) 2008-2013 Oracle Corporation All rights reserved.)
- Toralf
I usually exclusively use vboxmanage and the vbox web-service (through phpVirtualbox), but out of interest to your problem yesterday I ran a X server on my system and ran the Virtualbox GUI (v.4.2.20) on my server, it seemed to show all my servers running OK etc... I didn't try to interact with them, but it didn't seg-fault. I sometimes also use VRDE bound to localhost 127.0.0.1 as well...
Am 04.12.2013 13:39, schrieb Lars Hecking:
Toralf Lund writes:
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS6.5#head-eb6bb9abad0158d05...
I guess the threadstarter meant VB on the host.
This release note is about C6.5 as guest under VB. There is again breakage in VB 4.3.4 guest additions, see this link for a workaround: https://forums.oracle.com/message/11282251
Rainer
Am 04.12.2013 18:12, schrieb Rainer Traut:
Am 04.12.2013 13:39, schrieb Lars Hecking:
Toralf Lund writes:
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS6.5#head-eb6bb9abad0158d05...
I guess the threadstarter meant VB on the host.
This release note is about C6.5 as guest under VB. There is again breakage in VB 4.3.4 guest additions, see this link for a workaround: https://forums.oracle.com/message/11282251
And to make the mess complete C6.5 kernel 2.6.32-431.el6.x86_64 panics under VB 4.3.4 no matter if guest additions installed or not.
Rainer
On 04/12/13 18:12, Rainer Traut wrote:
Am 04.12.2013 13:39, schrieb Lars Hecking:
Toralf Lund writes:
So, have any of you lot seen this? Is there a way to make things work?
http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS6.5#head-eb6bb9abad0158d05...
I guess the threadstarter meant VB on the host.
Precisely! An the host being the CentOS 6.5 system. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this, although it seemed obvious when I wrote the post.
The guest OS really doesn't come into the picture at all, in that VirtualBox seems to crash long before it starts thinking about loading it.
- Toralf
This release note is about C6.5 as guest under VB. There is again breakage in VB 4.3.4 guest additions, see this link for a workaround: https://forums.oracle.com/message/11282251
Rainer
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On 12/5/2013 5:35 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Precisely! An the host being the CentOS 6.5 system. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this, although it seemed obvious when I wrote the post.
The guest OS really doesn't come into the picture at all, in that VirtualBox seems to crash long before it starts thinking about loading it.
have you considered using KVM rather than VirtualBox for this? Configured properly, its much higher performance.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
have you considered using KVM rather than VirtualBox for this? Configured properly, its much higher performance.
Benchmarks?
FC
On 12/5/2013 10:05 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM, John R Piercepierce@hogranch.com wrote:
have you considered using KVM rather than VirtualBox for this? Configured properly, its much higher performance.
Benchmarks?
I don't have any hard benchmarks, but KVM is performing similarly to VMware ESXI for me, while VirtualBox is more like VMware Workstation.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
have you considered using KVM rather than VirtualBox for this? Configured properly, its much higher performance.
Benchmarks?
FC _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I was curious about "kvm" and asked google "kvm vs virutalbox" and found this:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_haswell_virtual...
-wes
On 12/5/2013 10:14 AM, Wes James wrote:
I was curious about "kvm" and asked google "kvm vs virutalbox" and found this:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_haswell_virtual...
my experience is, disk IO is even more extreme, we do a lot of database stuff (mostly postgresql), but I don't have any numbers, just seat of pants, as I've not attempted to create two identical configurations side by side.
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:50:41 -0800 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 12/5/2013 5:35 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Precisely! An the host being the CentOS 6.5 system. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this, although it seemed obvious when I wrote the post.
The guest OS really doesn't come into the picture at all, in that VirtualBox seems to crash long before it starts thinking about loading it.
have you considered using KVM rather than VirtualBox for this? Configured properly, its much higher performance.
AFAIK, KVM does not support host CPU's which don't have virtualization support. If OP has somewhat aged hardware, he may have no option but to use VirtualBox.
HTH, :-) Marko
On 12/5/2013 12:30 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
AFAIK, KVM does not support host CPU's which don't have virtualization support. If OP has somewhat aged hardware, he may have no option but to use VirtualBox.
that would be some old crufty hardware, like pentium-4 (or the equivalent single core xeon stuff), hardly worth TRYING to virtualize on, except for very low performance 32-bit-only VM's, for test/dev kind of applications.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:28:29PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/5/2013 12:30 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
AFAIK, KVM does not support host CPU's which don't have virtualization support. If OP has somewhat aged hardware, he may have no option but to use VirtualBox.
that would be some old crufty hardware, like pentium-4 (or the equivalent single core xeon stuff), hardly worth TRYING to virtualize on, except for very low performance 32-bit-only VM's, for test/dev kind of applications.
Not arguing with you, but... I recall hearing probably only a couple years ago that not all the contemporary Intel processors exposed that option, so you couldn't use it on some processors. The writer of that blurb reported no obvious rhyme or reason why one would have it but another wouldn't.
And on the topic of VirtualBox, I can't get 4.3 to work right on my system (AMD Phenom II X2) which DOES have the virtual extensions enabled in the BIOS. It kept complaining that it wasn't enabled (or maybe did not exist, I can't recall exactly). Apparently some motherboards and/or chipsets work differently in re how they expose the feature, and the newest VB couldn't see it. So I stayed with the 4.2 series which more or less does work. (tho it still refuses to let me run a 64-bit Linux on VB even though I'm running Centos 64-bit and a 64-bit VB.) Go figure.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Fred Smith fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
Not arguing with you, but... I recall hearing probably only a couple years ago that not all the contemporary Intel processors exposed that option, so you couldn't use it on some processors. The writer of that blurb reported no obvious rhyme or reason why one would have it but another wouldn't.
Some laptop and desktop bios's disable it even if the CPU would otherwise support it. Some have an option setting, some don't.
And on the topic of VirtualBox, I can't get 4.3 to work right on my system (AMD Phenom II X2) which DOES have the virtual extensions enabled in the BIOS. It kept complaining that it wasn't enabled (or maybe did not exist, I can't recall exactly). Apparently some motherboards and/or chipsets work differently in re how they expose the feature, and the newest VB couldn't see it.
Does 'cat /pro/cpuinfo' show vtx (or svm on AMD)?
So I stayed with the 4.2 series which more or less does work. (tho it still refuses to let me run a 64-bit Linux on VB even though I'm running Centos 64-bit and a 64-bit VB.) Go figure.
That means it is not using hardware virtualization - you can do 32-bit in software.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 05:59:36PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Fred Smith fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
Not arguing with you, but... I recall hearing probably only a couple years ago that not all the contemporary Intel processors exposed that option, so you couldn't use it on some processors. The writer of that blurb reported no obvious rhyme or reason why one would have it but another wouldn't.
Some laptop and desktop bios's disable it even if the CPU would otherwise support it. Some have an option setting, some don't.
And on the topic of VirtualBox, I can't get 4.3 to work right on my system (AMD Phenom II X2) which DOES have the virtual extensions enabled in the BIOS. It kept complaining that it wasn't enabled (or maybe did not exist, I can't recall exactly). Apparently some motherboards and/or chipsets work differently in re how they expose the feature, and the newest VB couldn't see it.
Does 'cat /pro/cpuinfo' show vtx (or svm on AMD)?
yes.
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nonstop_tsc extd_apicid pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save
I'm running a Gigabyte MA770-UD3 motherboard, rev 1.0. Old enuff that even if it is one of the boards VB doesn't like, I can't imagine Oracle spending a nickle to fix the problem.
One of these days I'll get real ambitious and set up kvm on this box.
So I stayed with the 4.2 series which more or less does work. (tho it still refuses to let me run a 64-bit Linux on VB even though I'm running Centos 64-bit and a 64-bit VB.) Go figure.
That means it is not using hardware virtualization - you can do 32-bit in software.
Yup.
Digging thru the VB forums, I see a lot of complaints from a few years ago when an earlier version came out (3.2??? not sure) that it had trouble recognizing the VT extensions on some systems, but it was allegedly fixed.
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:28:29 -0800 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 12/5/2013 12:30 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
AFAIK, KVM does not support host CPU's which don't have virtualization support. If OP has somewhat aged hardware, he may have no option but to use VirtualBox.
that would be some old crufty hardware, like pentium-4 (or the equivalent single core xeon stuff), hardly worth TRYING to virtualize on, except for very low performance 32-bit-only VM's, for test/dev kind of applications.
Well, I have a 64-bit
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5250 @ 1.50GHz
and it does not have hardware virtualization support. This processor is not *that* old. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_VT-x#Intel_virtualization_.28VT-x.29), even some 2011 processors (namely P6100 series) do not have virtualization support. For the full list of which cpu's have/don't have vmx flag see for example
http://ark.intel.com/Products/VirtualizationTechnology
So cpu's without vmx are not as ancient as they might appear.
HTH, :-) Marko
On 12/5/2013 6:52 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
So cpu's without vmx are not as ancient as they might appear.
true, I always forget about the low end economy version processors as I tend to buy within a couple notches of the top, rather than the bottom of whatever generation, figuring that gets me more useful lifetime from my systems. so yeah, you will never be able to virtualize any 64bit guest with a non-VT-x processor, and many newer hypervisors won't even run at all as it requires far more emulation to run even 32bit guests on the non-VT-x processors.
On 05/12/13 18:50, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/5/2013 5:35 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Precisely! An the host being the CentOS 6.5 system. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this, although it seemed obvious when I wrote the post.
The guest OS really doesn't come into the picture at all, in that VirtualBox seems to crash long before it starts thinking about loading it.
have you considered using KVM rather than VirtualBox for this? Configured properly, its much higher performance.
KVM? I must admit I haven't even heard of it, except if you are talking about switchboxes ;-)
Can it be configured to run an actual Windows partition? (This is how I use VirtualBox today.)
- Toralf
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On 12/6/2013 12:22 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
KVM? I must admit I haven't even heard of it, except if you are talking about switchboxes;-)
Can it be configured to run an actual Windows partition? (This is how I use VirtualBox today.)
"Kernel Virtualization Mode" or something. its a hypervisor native in the linux kernel.
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/KVM
yes, you can run a windows VM rather nicely.
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:08:05AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:22 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
KVM? I must admit I haven't even heard of it, except if you are talking about switchboxes;-)
Can it be configured to run an actual Windows partition? (This is how I use VirtualBox today.)
Note that the article there is very out of date, but there is a link at the top to a more current article.
yes, you can run a windows VM rather nicely.
It can run a Windows VM, but, at least in my experience, a Windows, or actually, even a Linux with GUI, doesn't run as well as it does with VirtualBox. In addition, bridged networking takes a bit of work to set up--not very difficult once you're familiar with it, but it's done with a mouse click as it is in VirtualBox.
On the plus side, it seems (not thoroughly tested on my part) to be less resource intensive than VBox, and better at sharing resources.
On 06/12/13 12:26, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:08:05AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:22 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
KVM? I must admit I haven't even heard of it, except if you are talking about switchboxes;-)
Can it be configured to run an actual Windows partition? (This is how I use VirtualBox today.)
Note that the article there is very out of date, but there is a link at the top to a more current article.
yes, you can run a windows VM rather nicely.
It can run a Windows VM,
The question wasn't whether it can run Windows, but whether it can be set up to use a Windows *partition*. As in a system originally set up to run natively, and not through a virtual machine.
but, at least in my experience, a Windows, or actually, even a Linux with GUI, doesn't run as well as it does with VirtualBox.
OK.
I sort of got the impression from other posters that it would actually work better than VirtualBox...
In addition, bridged networking takes a bit of work to set up--not very difficult once you're familiar with it, but it's done with a mouse click as it is in VirtualBox.
On the plus side, it seems (not thoroughly tested on my part) to be less resource intensive than VBox, and better at sharing resources.
I see...
- Toralf
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On 12/06/2013 07:58 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
On 06/12/13 12:26, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:08:05AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:22 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
KVM? I must admit I haven't even heard of it, except if you are talking about switchboxes;-)
Can it be configured to run an actual Windows partition? (This is how I use VirtualBox today.)
Note that the article there is very out of date, but there is a link at the top to a more current article.
yes, you can run a windows VM rather nicely.
It can run a Windows VM,
The question wasn't whether it can run Windows, but whether it can be set up to use a Windows *partition*. As in a system originally set up to run natively, and not through a virtual machine.
but, at least in my experience, a Windows, or actually, even a Linux with GUI, doesn't run as well as it does with VirtualBox.
OK.
I sort of got the impression from other posters that it would actually work better than VirtualBox...
In addition, bridged networking takes a bit of work to setup--not very difficult once you're familiar with it, but it's done with a mouse click as it is in VirtualBox.
On the plus side, it seems (not thoroughly tested on my part) to be less resource intensive than VBox, and better at sharing resources.
I see...
- Toralf
This article say KVM runs better than VB at least on the haswell cpu
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_haswell_virtual...
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Toralf Lund toralf.lund@pgs.com wrote:
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
You should really post this on the Virtualbox forums or the VBox mailing list.
https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=4db5599066c5c0167e28... https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
And file a bug report https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Bugtracker
FC
On 05/12/13 19:08, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Toralf Lund toralf.lund@pgs.com wrote:
Is anyone here using VirtualBox? I've had it working rather well for some time, but after some recent upgrade or the other it's started exiting with a Segmentation fault just after startup, before windows are opened or anything. I've tried a few different versions, all with the same result. I'm using binary packages http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/el.
You should really post this on the Virtualbox forums or the VBox mailing list.
I might. I just thought I would check here first if this was a general CentOS issue. Since it looks like some change or upgrade to the CentOS installation broke it, I mean.
- Toralf
https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=4db5599066c5c0167e28... https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
And file a bug report https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Bugtracker
FC
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
I also got the same segfault after upgrading to CentOS 6.5. The VirtualBox gui segfaults before it appears, and I can not start the VMs from the terminal either. Upgrading or downgrading to various VirtualBox or kernel versions did not work either.
A workaround for me was to start the VMs using the terminal with only a simple GUI (sdl), not full GUI. The command is described in the documentation. https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch08.html#vboxmanage-startvm VBoxManage startvm "machine-name" --type sdl
You lose the VB-menus, but all hotkeys still works. This workaround was tested with CentOS 6.5, kernel 2.6.32-431.3.1.el6.x86_64 and VirtualBox 4.2.22 from virtualbox.org-repo.
-
Anthony K -
Endre Bjørsvik -
Fernando Cassia -
Fred Smith -
Giles Coochey -
John R Pierce -
Lars Hecking -
Les Mikesell -
Marko Vojinovic -
Rainer Traut -
Scott Robbins -
Steve Clark -
Toralf Lund -
Wes James