** Changed in: virtualbox
Status: Fix Released => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
Title:
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
--
ub
It's still not fixed for me with Ubuntu 10.10 and VirtualBox 4.0.4,
further information and logs on the upstream bugtracker (which I also
reopened).
** Changed in: virtualbox-ose (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
** Changed in: virtualbox
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
Title:
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
--
ubuntu-b
** Changed in: virtualbox-ose (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubunt
The kernel issue that caused this problem is fixed in Lucid. I can
confirm that VirtualBox (3.2.4) running on Lucid with Win XP and Win 7
guests runs quite nicely now with VT-x enabled with 2 CPU's defined on
my Intel Core 2 Duo P8700. Probably safe to mark this bug as such.
--
VirtualBox perf
Hardware
Motherboard: GA-P55-UD3P
CPU: I5 750
Memory: 4GB
Software
===
Host: Ubuntu 9.10 64bit
Guest: Windows XP SP3
Anything but disabling VT-x causes terrible performance of Windows XP
guest
Unlike the I7 family I5 does not have certain virtualization features like VT-d.
Is it poss
Some more notes: I'm using AMD-V and Nested Paging. Especially nested paging
made a big positive difference in performance, up to 60-70% faster for
compilation when enabled. So the VT-x in the bug description does not apply to
me.
Prior to compiling my own kernel I tried linux-rt kernel, but W
Recompiling Karmic kernel and setting the timer frequency to 250Hz cured
this same problem for me, although I'm using the PUEL version of
VirtualBox 3.0.12. I'm on amd64 Karmic (Kubuntu 9.10) host, AMD 7750
dual core CPU, WinXP SMP guest.
For kernel compilation http://tinyurl.com/yb7pp5a instructi
Same problem, VBox went really slow after upgrade to Karmic. I do not
use any hw virtualization, just standard SW one.
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bu
@mnoe
For me real time kernel didn't help.
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs
I have the same problem of virtualbox being unusably slow since I
upgraded to karmic, in jaunty everything was runnig fine. I also noticed
that gkrellm lags every 4 seconds for 4 seconds. During these the window
doesn't get updated. Other programs run without problems however.
Installing the rt-ke
Well, I had THOUGHT that running with just one CPU defined in VirtualBox
was a fix for me, but apparently, it is not. While it is a huge
improvement over defining 2 CPU's, once I try to do anything that needs
a little horse-power, everything goes down hill. Today, I was testing a
PowerPoint prese
@tlu
rt kernel doesn't do the job for me as well.
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubun
I forgot to mention one thing: In the Virtualbox forums there are some
posters who wrote that installing the real time kernel (incl. headers)
improved the performance of Virtualbox considerably. I tried, and it
didn't make a difference for me. But it might be worth a try for others.
(Note, however,
@Michał Gołębiowski: I can confirm that this problem didn't exist in
Jaunty where Virtualbox ran very well with SMP (2 cpus) enabled (and, of
course, VT-x which is required for SMP). I have an Intel Core2Duo E8400
with 3 GHz.
Now under Karmic the situation is considerably worse: With SMP enabled,
I am running XP guest on Karmic / 2GB AMD 2x4400+ with Samsung-SSD.
I suspected the filesystem (ext4) but on XFS, nilfs and btrfs it is all the
same: XP guest loads for AGES... unusable...
However, for me it is worse when virtualisation is turned off.
When the system is otherwise idle, disk throug
I can confirm that this problem still exists with VirtualBox 3.0.10
(PUEL). Also, my experience is the same as Fale's. I was able to run
WinXP in VirtualBox 3.0.8 (PUEL) with VT-x turned on & 2 CPU's without
an issue.
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bug
** Changed in: virtualbox
Status: Unknown => New
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing lis
Added upstream tracker.
** Bug watch added: Virtualbox Trac #5294
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/5294
** Also affects: virtualbox via
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/5294
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
ht
A person called Fale here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8167746&postcount=8
claims the problem didn't exist in Jaunty.
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455112
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
@William Davis
1 CPU, IO APIC off. And performance with Intel VT-x is bad, though. It seems
that on my Debian etch virtual machine it's the opposite - VT-x increases
performace (but I don't have any reliable tests). Windows XP machine works
terrible with virtualization on.
--
VirtualBox perfor
michal: How many virtual CPU's do you have for your VM? Through
experimentation, I've just discovered that I can get good performance
with VT-x enabled if I set the number of CPU's to 1 on my Core 2 Duo
machine (P8700). I was able to set it to 2 CPU's under Jaunty without a
problem -- but the per
I think that about a year ago I had a similar problem on a borrowed
notebook. I don't remember if it has Intel or AMD CPU, but it had
virtualization support and turning on using it in VirtualBox caused
everything to run a few times slower.
So it seems it's a long-time issue... Did sb report it to
I have the same experience with the VirtualBox-3.0 PUEL version from
sun's repository. With VT-x/AMD-V enabled, my Windows XP Pro virtual
machine is unusable. After I switch VT-x off, it runs well.
--
VirtualBox performance is much worse when Intel VT-x is enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33923350/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "LsMod.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33923351/LsMod.txt
** Attachment added: "ProcEnviron.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33923352/ProcEnviron.txt
** Attachment
25 matches
Mail list logo
