From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-123516-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1QRpUn-0005aW-L3
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:46:17 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 190811C032;
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 17:44:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0A71C032
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 17:44:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so31757vws.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=wLHe5gIx/usXbtUy0OmoFM26c6kJZbaMUBE9D33zCQg=;
b=lkBhCw9HdCOwTiaVTc9ZDoIxFTm2izVfUMAiI6blytjIJ4BTVEUKPKumS1q6a3JyfF
tkWeOhr6JpOIRDo9yRbdTQYzfq7A5naLnt7o5hmw6iiRp9a9YFJfUHbqqgM3elCjT3RR
Ah745OJaz29ehWBKH8TcgHX9a6m/gqp8uwkOI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
b=Gcln5rvT3RkpSt52N0u2zcNb3llf2ONVFkI8H05HRFun5tZCnOpNxl7d2PMh0W418R
1Q7FedPfuCGlgQ3ofrHwOGxErJO9msIqCLkmICb3t7UEoN5ds/Zw+XxHRhsDMPE7RHW+
mzPSU8js2I9oKNoy1J5v/W0PRHFwQNEgvmG0o=
Received: by 10.220.199.73 with SMTP id er9mr2919832vcb.83.1306950293176; Wed,
01 Jun 2011 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jz.penguin@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.190.199 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201106010617.11273.michaelkintzios@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimZp8hSuRxioyyWpfat+z=nju0UHA@mail.gmail.com>
<4DE53D70.9040000@libertytrek.org> <BANLkTik5r7un9Sd93EQUrAAmmwWeK0Zf3w@mail.gmail.com>
<201106010617.11273.michaelkintzios@gmail.com>
From: James <jtp@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:44:33 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: oHvfpwjSrZQlixDmWOBsgvJYY6k
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=9ZKAPiT3Vn7goXpALF281-p+UiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] virtualbox + kernel panic 2.6.38-r2
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 7b483a45b18740e25060ac4ad71bdcdd
There doesn't seem to be anything in the VBox.log that indicates the
system had a hard lockup. I imagine the kernel panicing resulted in
VirtualBox being unable to write to the log.
Is anyone running VB on a Linux raid partition? I've logically
narrowed down the issue to one of the following:
(a) I've read that network driver(s) have caused some hard lockups on
the host...I'm using bridged mode
(b) there are some strange messages that appear when the VM is started
(regarding misaligned sectors or something like that); I can't seem to
find the messages right now, however. I believe md was the one logging
the errors; maybe this has something to do with the hard lockup?
(c) SMP has probably been ruled out; I have two 4-core Intel 5570s;
the system is under no load whatsoever. In fact, the last two kernel
panics occurred during Windows installation.
Any other thoughts on how to troubleshoot this?
-james
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 01:17, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2011 20:55:08 Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
> wrote:
>> > On 2011-05-31 1:31 PM, James wrote:
>> >> The only thing I've read online that may be applicable is that there
>> >> have been some issues with kernel panics when you give the guest OS
>> >> more than 1 processor. It would suck badly if SMP didn't work well on
>> >> vbox.
>> >
>> > My understanding is it is a general rule that you never give any VM mo=
re
>> > than one processor, regardless of which vm hypervisor you are running.=
..
>>
>> My platform is a Gentoo i7-980 Extreme processor so I have 12 CPUs (6
>> cores * 2 for hyperthreading)
>>
>> In Virtualbox I'm running both Gentoo and Win 7 VMs, each allocated 4
>> processors. In Win 7 I have one app that uses everything it can find
>> so when it's running all 4 processors are 100% utilized. In Linux I
>> see the CPU usage at 33%. Win 7 is sluggish when this app is running
>> as it hogs from the system
>>
>> In VMWare Player I'm running Win XP VMs with 2 processors. None of my
>> apps in XP use more than 1 processor. XP itself is quite responsive
>> even when these apps are using 1 of the 2 processors dedicated the the
>> VM.
>>
>> I seldom run more than 1 app in any Windows VM as I don't trust
>> Windows. I've not had any problems with any of these VMs that I'd
>> associate with using multiple cores.
>>
>> And yes, I do own these Windows licenses. VMs keep that money useful
>> until some day some Linux apps come along that do what these do for me
>> in Windows.
>
> A bit OT I guess, but what apps are you using that do not have a Linux
> alternative Mark? =A0Answer off list if you wish so we do not hijack the =
thread.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>