Re: VirtualBox

From: Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 00:10:01 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan.2011.11.05.00.10.01_at_gmail.com>

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:48:14 -0700, stevencrowder wrote:

> On Nov 3, 7:20 pm, Robert Klemme <shortcut..._at_googlemail.com> wrote:

>> On 11/03/2011 11:43 PM, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > matthias.h..._at_gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> On Nov 3, 6:12 pm, Mladen Gogala<gogala.mla..._at_gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>> So far, I've been using KVM to create virtual machines on my Linux
>> >>> boxes. KVM is sort of tricky to set up but works well once you get
>> >>> through the initial hurdles. I decided to give Oracle's VirtualBox
>> >>> a shot and was pleasantly surprised. It's simple, it installs
>> >>> without much fuss, it works well and it's free. There is also a
>> >>> Windows version. I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.
>>
>> >> This year I switched from VMWare to Oracle VirtualBox for running
>> >> virtual Linux servers with Oracle on my desktop (first Windows XP,
>> >> now Windows 7), and I also like it a lot. I had some annoying issues
>> >> with VirtualBox 4.1.x so I'm still running version 4.0.12 which is
>> >> pretty stable.
>>
>> > I too have switched from using VMWare to VirtualBox, mainly because
>> > of the ease of use in building new virtual machines - VMWare Player
>> > is free, but you need the pay-for VMWare Workstation or Server to
>> > create images from scratch.
>>
>> VMWare Server is free - and it can create images from scratch.  The
>> major drawback which drove me from VMWare Server to Virtual Box is the
>> limitation that you can only have a single snapshot.
>>
>> > The pleasing additional benefit is that (apart from a sometimes more
>> > complex arrangement for sharing host<->  guest filesystems) it
>> > appears to be a superior product in terms of performance and
>> > functionality.
>>
>> I am not so sure about performance.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>         robert

> 
> On my dual core desktop (Intel Core 2) I generally see 30-40% CPU
> utilization from Virtual Box running a mostly idle VM.  Do others see
> similar?  Is this expected?
> 
> --Steven

Not really. This is the result on the host OS, with freshly booted OEL 6.1, sitting idle:

[mgogala_at_medo ~]$ sar -u 3 20
Linux 2.6.35.14-100.fc14.i686.PAE (medo) 11/04/2011 _i686_ (2 CPU) 08:05:59 PM CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
08:06:02 PM all 3.51 0.00 5.18 0.00 0.00 91.30
08:06:05 PM all 2.16 0.00 2.66 1.00 0.00 94.18
08:06:08 PM all 3.22 0.00 5.64 0.00 0.00 91.14
08:06:11 PM all 4.35 0.00 7.41 0.64 0.00 87.60
08:06:14 PM all 4.13 0.00 7.11 0.00 0.00 88.76
08:06:17 PM all 3.68 0.00 6.40 0.80 0.00 89.12
08:06:20 PM all 4.13 0.00 7.27 0.00 0.00 88.60
08:06:23 PM all 4.03 0.00 5.04 0.84 0.00 90.08
08:06:26 PM all 2.17 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 95.33
08:06:29 PM all 2.16 0.00 1.99 0.83 0.00 95.02
08:06:32 PM all 3.47 0.00 6.12 0.00 0.00 90.41
08:06:35 PM all 4.62 0.00 7.92 0.50 0.00 86.96
08:06:38 PM all 3.87 0.00 7.10 0.00 0.00 89.03
08:06:41 PM all 4.40 0.00 7.65 0.81 0.00 87.13
08:06:44 PM all 4.13 0.00 7.10 0.00 0.00 88.78
08:06:47 PM all 2.35 0.00 2.18 0.84 0.00 94.62
08:06:50 PM all 2.15 0.00 2.32 0.00 0.00 95.53
08:06:53 PM all 4.15 0.00 6.22 0.64 0.00 89.00
08:06:56 PM all 4.19 0.00 8.05 0.00 0.00 87.76
08:06:59 PM all 4.43 0.00 7.21 0.82 0.00 87.54
Average: all 3.57 0.00 5.67 0.39 0.00 90.37
[mgogala_at_medo ~]$

On average, I have more than 90% of idle CPU time. It depends on your platform and hardware. Windows is known to do stuff behind the scenes and if you have an older CPU, it can be quite expensive.

-- 
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

Received on Fri Nov 04 2011 - 19:10:01 CDT