Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap?
2012/6/13 Thomas Goirand wrote: Do you use 2.6 kernel and have FF profile and VB images on the same ext4 partition? My laptop setup is: - kernel 2.6.32-5 (Squeeze...) - RAID1 (replacing my thinkpad DVD ultrabay by a 2nd HDD) - LVM - dm-crypt - ext3 Yes, both the VB images and FF profile are on the same partition, as I want both to be encrypted. Writing to my disk is normally quite fast, but I've noticed indeed that when it's VB that does it, it's slow. If I don't find a way, I guess I'll switch back to Xen with NAT... Can you reproduce that with 3.2 kernel? Why would this change? I remember seing a thread in LKML with very similar scenarios. Not sure what kernel version was there, but it was definitely 2.6.*. So I suggested to check a newer kernel in case it was already fixed. No need to *switch* to 3.2, just check (e.g. from backports) whether it makes any difference. You can remove it after the test. :) PS: you can check the output of `latencytop` as well zigo@buzig ~$ sudo latencytop Please enable the CONFIG_LATENCYTOP configuration in your kernel. Exiting... Is there a kernel module to load? Or is this only available in 3.2? No, it's an old kernel config parameter. You need to build the kernel with CONFIG_LATENCYTOP=y in your .config. That suggestion was just in case you *want* to dig deeper into the problem. There's another firefox-specific hack you can try, but I would suggest to check a new kernel first. -- Serge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoveneo854tm0d6vzobdrpgejd8vfb8ufp2pxpz_ysey9an...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap?
On 06/11/2012 06:46 AM, Serge wrote: Do you use 2.6 kernel and have FF profile and VB images on the same ext4 partition? My laptop setup is: - kernel 2.6.32-5 (Squeeze...) - RAID1 (replacing my thinkpad DVD ultrabay by a 2nd HDD) - LVM - dm-crypt - ext3 Yes, both the VB images and FF profile are on the same partition, as I want both to be encrypted. Writing to my disk is normally quite fast, but I've noticed indeed that when it's VB that does it, it's slow. If I don't find a way, I guess I'll switch back to Xen with NAT... Can you reproduce that with 3.2 kernel? Why would this change? PS: you can check the output of `latencytop` as well zigo@buzig ~$ sudo latencytop Please enable the CONFIG_LATENCYTOP configuration in your kernel. Exiting... Is there a kernel module to load? Or is this only available in 3.2? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd88bab.40...@debian.org
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap?
On 13/06/12 13:46, Thomas Goirand wrote: Writing to my disk is normally quite fast, but I've noticed indeed that when it's VB that does it, it's slow. If I don't find a way, I guess I'll switch back to Xen with NAT... No opinion on VirtualBox, Xen or performance thereof, but kvm is also an option. I sometimes run virtual machines for development, on a laptop with ext3 over LVM over dm-crypt (so the complete stack from VM to disk is: ext3, qcow2, ext3, LVM, dm-crypt, disk) and I've had acceptable performance. I use virt-manager to simplify dealing with the VMs. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd89230.9020...@debian.org
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap?
On 06/13/2012 09:14 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: On 13/06/12 13:46, Thomas Goirand wrote: Writing to my disk is normally quite fast, but I've noticed indeed that when it's VB that does it, it's slow. If I don't find a way, I guess I'll switch back to Xen with NAT... No opinion on VirtualBox, Xen or performance thereof, but kvm is also an option. I sometimes run virtual machines for development, on a laptop with ext3 over LVM over dm-crypt (so the complete stack from VM to disk is: ext3, qcow2, ext3, LVM, dm-crypt, disk) and I've had acceptable performance. I use virt-manager to simplify dealing with the VMs. S VirtualBox is only nice because of its GUI. Otherwise, KVM or XEN outperforms it a lot, especially on I/O. Also, VB is convenient because of its bridging thing which works even on WiFi. Unless I'm mistaking, Xen can't do bridging on WiFi (I'd be *very* happy to be wrong here, so if I am, please let me know!), and NAT is always annoying me, which is why I continue with VB for my SID VM. Anyway, thanks for the hint, I may give (another) try with KVM. Is there any good GUI that I could use for it (that would work in Squeeze)? Does it performs a lot faster if I give it a full LVM partition as HDD, or I wont see much difference with qcow2? I mainly know Xen a lot, and (a bit less) KVM on the command line, but it'd be nice to use a GTK/Qt GUI too. Thomas P.S: Sorry for the noise to those who don't care, I quite know it's a bit OT for -devel, but it would really improve my work to have better VM tools. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd8ae8b.4000...@debian.org
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:15:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 06/13/2012 09:14 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: On 13/06/12 13:46, Thomas Goirand wrote: Writing to my disk is normally quite fast, but I've noticed indeed that when it's VB that does it, it's slow. If I don't find a way, I guess I'll switch back to Xen with NAT... No opinion on VirtualBox, Xen or performance thereof, but kvm is also an option. I sometimes run virtual machines for development, on a laptop with ext3 over LVM over dm-crypt (so the complete stack from VM to disk is: ext3, qcow2, ext3, LVM, dm-crypt, disk) and I've had acceptable performance. I use virt-manager to simplify dealing with the VMs. S VirtualBox is only nice because of its GUI. Can't say I've ever tried running it, but VirtualBox kernel modules are considered too bad even for staging and are the primary reason for the recently added 'O' taint bit. Otherwise, KVM or XEN outperforms it a lot, especially on I/O. Also, VB is convenient because of its bridging thing which works even on WiFi. Unless I'm mistaking, Xen can't do bridging on WiFi (I'd be *very* happy to be wrong here, so if I am, please let me know!), and NAT is always annoying me, which is why I continue with VB for my SID VM. Anyway, thanks for the hint, I may give (another) try with KVM. Is there any good GUI that I could use for it (that would work in Squeeze)? [...] I think there is a usable version of virt-manager in squeeze. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120613160411.gi2...@decadent.org.uk
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap? (was: Summary: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless)
On 06/10/2012 11:55 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote: Well, if I start Virtual Box on my notebook (4 GB RAM), the system uses the swap partition. Frankly, I don't know what the fuck virtualbox is doing with its memory management, but I was tempted more than once to file a RC bug with a title like this one: Virtualbox fucks up Linux memory on nearly all cases I didn't do it, because I'm unsure if what I'm experiencing is to be considered normal or not, or if there are tricks to avoid that. Seriously, when I run it, I always do a swapoff -a, otherwise my HDD starts spinning fast, even with 4 GB of RAM, and only 1.5 GB of it for the guest. Then even when I do this, I get some random memory allocation warnings printed in the kernel on tty1, as if the system went crazy with no handles for new chunks of memory. All this, when top shows there's some remaining free RAM. Let's put it this way: I can't run Virtualbox AND Firefox at the same time, or my laptop becomes unusably slow and non responsive. Am I the only one who experienced that? Is there something I didn't understand, or is it Virtualbox that has a problem? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd4e76b.3000...@debian.org
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap?
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:28:59AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 06/10/2012 11:55 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote: Well, if I start Virtual Box on my notebook (4 GB RAM), the system uses the swap partition. Frankly, I don't know what the fuck virtualbox is doing with its memory management, but I was tempted more than once to file a RC bug with a title like this one: Virtualbox fucks up Linux memory on nearly all cases I didn't do it, because I'm unsure if what I'm experiencing is to be considered normal or not, or if there are tricks to avoid that. I don’t know if this is normal. At least I can say, that I can use Virtual Box and Iceweasel together. The system gets slow, but it still is usable. Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.rootsland.net | | Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html | smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap?
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes: Let's put it this way: I can't run Virtualbox AND Firefox at the same time, or my laptop becomes unusably slow and non responsive. Am I the only one who experienced that? Is there something I didn't understand, or is it Virtualbox that has a problem? I have the exact same problem. 1GB for VirtualBox, 1GB for Firefox, 4GB RAM and the machine becomes slow as a dog. Never cared enough to investigate. -- panic(Fod fight!); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aha1542.c -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/m3k3zec0tn@neo.luffy.cx
Re: Is it me or virtualbox memory management crap? (was: Summary: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless)
2012/6/10 Thomas Goirand wrote: Let's put it this way: I can't run Virtualbox AND Firefox at the same time, or my laptop becomes unusably slow and non responsive. Do you use 2.6 kernel and have FF profile and VB images on the same ext4 partition? Can you reproduce that with 3.2 kernel? PS: you can check the output of `latencytop` as well. -- Serge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoveneqplbjlgkvlvf-9tkynpngukbods2twnk0dnn6h9j8...@mail.gmail.com
