VirtualBox

Custom Query (16363 matches)

Filters
 
Or
 
  
 
Columns

Show under each result:


Results (2500 - 2502 of 16363)

Ticket Resolution Summary Owner Reporter
#20 wontfix [feature-request] Win9x (95/98/98SE/Me) support as Guest OS Technologov
Description

Please support Win9x as a guestOS (primarily 98 is needed).

Plz do so for the folowing reasons:

a) Those OSes are still widely used b) Virtualization software (such as this) is heavily used for software QA purposes of backward-compatibility. Win9x is a supported platform for large number of software (both commercial and OSS), so it cut costs considerably. This is very big market that both VMware and VirtualPC supports well. c) It's still needed by legacy software that cannot be run on newer OSes that isn't updated anymore. d) For Windows-networks simulation, Win9x has lower memory and CPU requirements. This also helps if you have not-so-powerful host. e) help desks - consumer support for Win9x is still a requirement for many corporations and ISPs. Virtualization really helps here.

Currently, it installs, but fails to run, in both normal and safe modes it crashes on first boot. I would like to see this issues resolved, and later see Guest OS integration for Win9x.

#18 fixed [feature-request] VirtualBox Networking Model - new idea Technologov
Description
  • Why is the TAP driver is "so needed"?

You say that Linux has something like this already, so you provide it only for Windows.

  1. Actually, all Windows NT-based systems has something like this included.

The MS loopback can be added via Control Panel/Add Hardware/New Hardware/Manual/Network Adaptors/Microsoft. It is treated as just another NIC. Does your TAP driver provide you with features that you *absolutely* must-have? If not, then it's better to use the MS one, because it's signed. (and gives no stupid driver signature warnings during adding of an extra NIC)


Actually, I think we can get much more far *without* any such TAP drivers at all.


  1. I think that the current networking model needs new revision: (if I

understood your networking model correctly) : it can be much more scalable, if it will be done the "Microsoft Virtual PC 2004"-way; (or if you hate MS way, then look at the Open-Source emulator "Dynagen"-way)

that is: I think that we don't have to use any such TAP driver at

all. We can use the host network interface directly - of course we need some way to enumerate them - two ways exists: Windows Registry or WinPCap. (BTW: Open-Source Wireshark, while not an emulator, also uses this technique)

With this approach hubs will be created automatically, without any need to define bridges manually. Windows 2000 host will be supported much better this way (because AFAIK it doesn't have bridging) and Windows XP host won't be limited to one bridge as it is now.

As a bonus, the Linux host networking will become piece-a-cake - instead of manually creating TAP interfaces and then bridging them to real host interfaces (manually again, all via command-line), this new approach will enable to integrate it all nicely within a GUI so click-click-click will solve it all. Basically a Linux user, working with a GUI-only, will be able to achieve host-networking effect under Linux very easily !

The possible downside costs is an extra dependency: libpcap/WinPCap (to make things cross-platform).

Please be patient, because I might be incorrect in some cases; after-all I looked at your software for only one day. Please tell me where I'm right and where I'm not.

-Alexey Eremenko (CCNA, Cisco Certified Network Associate)

(originally sent :vbox-users@…

date Feb 7, 2007 10:49 PM)

#5559 fixed [feature-request] VMM: Coexistence of different virtualizers on the same host (sharing of VMX) Technologov
Description

Hi All !

There is ongoing discussion of making multiple VMMs work on the same host, and share Intel hardware virtualization, VMX.

This is useful for running VirtualBox together with "XP Mode" on Windows 7 hosts, or together with "KVM" on Linux hosts.

I have found the following thread, and I hope this will be interesting for you:

=================================


From: SqUe Squarious <squarious@…> Date: Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:57 PM Subject: KVM and VMware Workstation 7 - Is it finally possible? To: kvm@…

Hi! First time here, I am old user of vmware-server that recently moved to KVM. I am excited with KVM and I don't want to go back to vmware server for no reason. However as a developer I sometimes need to work with windows desktops and vmware workstation does a good job on this. I know kernel VT cannot work with two different hypervisors as it was never designed to do. So vmware workstation 6.5 could not run when kvm was running.

With vmware workstation 7 there is a change, I will copy paste parts of vmware communities thread but please read the whole thread.

Me:


"Being a user of KVM and reading what you I said I gave a try to workstation 7 to see if something have changed. Although the first time a vmware vm start-ups all KVM vms crash at the second try both KVM and VMware vms run simultaneously. After that success I ran at KVM irc channel to debug that crash problem but didn't believe me that I had two hypervisors with VT emulation running on the same host."

jmattson:


"It's a hack--Intel has assured us that it cannot possibly work. "

HRPeg:


"But then something changed: in Workstation 7/Player 3/Fusion 3, jmattson found a hack which allows 2 foreign hypervisors to work on the same host with VT. It works really well in practice as you have been able to verify, but Intel warned us that sometimes it might not work in theory. I suspect this is the reason why jmattson does not want to talk about it."

jmattson:


"Everything would be fine if all hypervisor vendors could agree to leave VMX operation when yielding the CPU. VMware already does this if the CPU was not in VMX operation when we were scheduled. There may be some resistance to this idea for performance reasons. However, our current hack would be more robust if all hypervisor vendors could agree to clear the "launched" state of every active VMCS on the physical core before yielding the core to us. There may still be some resistance to this idea for performance reasons, but perhaps that's the starting point of a negotiation."

Me:


"In my case I have KVM/libvirt installed that autostarts 4 linux server VMs. When I first boot up my computer (and KVM autostarts) the first time that I will startup a vmware virtual machine, all KVM vms will crash instantly with log saying

kvm: unhandled exit 6 kvm_run returned -22" After that crash if I restart KVM, starting/stoping vmware vms does not affect them "

jmattson:


"Thank you for providing those additional details. Unhandled exit 6 is likely to mean VM-instruction error number 6, which means "VMRESUME with a corrupted VMCS (indicates corruption of the current VMCS)." This is exactly what we would expect when our hack fails. This particular failure could be avoided if the kvm hypervisor would clear the "launched" state of every active VMCS on the physical core before yielding the core to us. There may be other solutions as well, but there is nothing that VMware can do unilaterally to address this problem. Any feasible solution requires cooperation among the many hypervisor vendors."

Can these two hypervisors coexist in the same host with peace? In my case does KVM crash (only the first time) because of the reason that jmattson says?

Full thread: Whole thread: http://communities.vmware.com/message/1420821

=================================

What do you think of it?

If this is possible, I would be glad if this would be implemented into VirtualBox.

-"Technologov", 25.11.2009.

Batch Modify
Note: See TracBatchModify for help on using batch modify.
Note: See TracQuery for help on using queries.

© 2024 Oracle Support Privacy / Do Not Sell My Info Terms of Use Trademark Policy