Hi all,

>> I have assigned 800 MB to each guest. With 4 GB RAM this leaves 2.4 GB
>> to the OS. Should be sufficient!?
>
> Here is the result of my latest tests. I have a Ultra 20 (1 x 250 GB
> SATA, 4 GB RAM) with a ZFS / Solaris 10 u6 installation and am running
> VirtualBox 2.1.0. One Solaris 10 image/guest is running fine. When I
> start the second Solaris 10 image / guest, the machine gets
> unresponsive (unusable slow).
>
> prstat
> ==============================
>     PID USERNAME  SIZE   RSS STATE  PRI NICE      TIME  CPU 
> PROCESS/NLWP
>    2499 root      963M  886M sleep   60    0   3:35:52 0.6% 
> VirtualBox/15
>    1288 root       91M 1084K sleep   59  -10   0:01:24 0.2% java/22
>    1089 noaccess  163M  680K sleep   59    0   0:01:28 0.2% java/19
>    4705 root      490M  419M sleep   59    0   0:03:51 0.2% 
> VirtualBox/15
>    1834 utwww     274M  820K sleep   59    0   0:01:04 0.2% java/63
>    2082 root       50M  768K sleep   60    0   0:05:33 0.1% Xnewt/1
>    4702 root     3768K  196K cpu0    59    0   0:00:00 0.1% prstat/1
>    1862 root       24M 4012K sleep   59    0   0:00:34 0.1% Xorg/1
>
>
> df -h
> ==============================
> Filesystem             size   used  avail capacity  Mounted on
> rpool/ROOT/s10x_u6wos_07b
>                         228G    52G   170G    24%    /
> /devices                 0K     0K     0K     0%    /devices
> ctfs                     0K     0K     0K     0%    /system/contract
> proc                     0K     0K     0K     0%    /proc
> mnttab                   0K     0K     0K     0%    /etc/mnttab
> swap                   3.1G   416K   3.1G     1%    /etc/svc/volatile
> objfs                    0K     0K     0K     0%    /system/object
> sharefs                  0K     0K     0K     0%    /etc/dfs/sharetab
> /usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap2.so.1
>                         222G    52G   170G    24%    /lib/libc.so.1
> fd                       0K     0K     0K     0%    /dev/fd
> swap                   3.1G   260K   3.1G     1%    /tmp
> swap                   3.1G    32K   3.1G     1%    /var/run
> rpool/export           228G    19K   170G     1%    /export
> rpool/export/home      228G    18K   170G     1%    /export/home
> rpool                  228G    35K   170G     1%    /rpool
> 192.168.1.1:/home       34G    16G    18G    48%    /home
>
> iostat -D
> ==============================
>      sd0           sd1           nfs1          nfs2
> rps wps util  rps wps util  rps wps util  rps wps util
>    7   7  4.7    0   0  0.0    0   0  0.0    0   0  0.0
>
> iostat -x 4
> ==============================
> device    r/s    w/s   kr/s   kw/s wait actv  svc_t  %w  %b
> sd0     114.7   36.0 3634.8 2318.9 11.9  0.9   84.8  99  90
> sd1       0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0  0.0  0.0    0.0   0   0
> nfs1      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0  0.0  0.0    0.0   0   0
> nfs2      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0  0.0  0.0    0.0   0   0
>
> Both machines are configured to use 500 - 600 MB of RAM. What can I do?

I forgot to mention that I can rescue the situation (avoid a reboot) by 
simply killing the second virtual box instance. The machine taht gets 
responsive again and even that SRS screen reappears after a minute or 
so.

It was my understanding that a machine like an Ultra 20 with 4 GB 
should easily run 2-4 virtual Solaris (600 MB) instances. I have no 
problem upgrading to SAS disks and a more powerful machine as soon as I 
know that this basically works, but right now I am not convinced. One 
virtual machine (Solaris) works fine, even a Soalris geust and a 
Windows guest. But as soon as I start a second solaris guest, the 
machine goes down!? :-(

The log file gives me again

00:17:33.825 PIIX3 ATA: execution time for ATA command 0xca was 46 
seconds
00:18:18.556 TM: Giving up catch-up attempt at a 63964751518 ns lag; 
new total: 661419527113 ns
00:19:19.265 TM: Giving up catch-up attempt at a 60005285833 ns lag; 
new total: 721424812946 ns
00:20:21.576 TM: Giving up catch-up attempt at a 60870846281 ns lag; 
new total: 782295659227 ns
00:21:24.354 TM: Giving up catch-up attempt at a 60461477558 ns lag; 
new total: 842757136785 ns
00:22:58.934 TM: Giving up catch-up attempt at a 91367816914 ns lag; 
new total: 934124953699 ns
00:24:41.887 TM: Giving up catch-up attempt at a 103145242490 ns lag; 
new total: 1037270196189 ns

Hints are greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

   Andreas



_______________________________________________
vbox-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users

Reply via email to