Virtual Box 5.1

#1

Post by spv » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 2:21 AM UTC

Virtual Box 5.1
virtualbox.org

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#2

Post by mkesper » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 8:06 AM UTC

https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#3

Post by christogreeff » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:09 AM UTC

Has anyone done performance tests with different versions of VirtualBox? I often see entries in the changelog relating to "significantly improved performance".

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#4

Post by mrmondo » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:11 AM UTC

Anyone tested to see if the network and disk IO is actually any faster than before? We found it _very_ slow in the past compared to VMWare Fusion on OSX.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#5

Post by mrmondo » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:12 AM UTC

christogreeff wrote: post #3

Has anyone done performance tests with different versions of VirtualBox? I often see entries in the changelog relating to "significantly improved performance".

snap, asked the same question at the same time, I've heard this many times, and many times I've found it to be slow as heck.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#6

Post by CoolGuySteve » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:28 AM UTC

I'm not sure why, but my Ubuntu image with unity always thinks it should run at 10fps. I had to hard set the frame rate in compizConfig at 60 fps to get it to run smoothly.

Putting it here because it took me quite a while to figure out why it was 3D accelerated but still so slow.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#7

Post by wildpeaks » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 10:29 AM UTC

If you're using Vagrant, stick to 5.0.24 until this issue is closed: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/7411

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#8

Post by PaulKeeble » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:13 AM UTC

christogreeff wrote: post #3

Has anyone done performance tests with different versions of VirtualBox? I often see entries in the changelog relating to "significantly improved performance".

I did a test for VMWare player verses Virtualbox and its no competition, VMWare is hands down a lot faster especially on anything GUI. I like what Virtualbox gives us but the performance is a problem.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#9

Post by ctrlrsf » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:20 AM UTC

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #6

I'm not sure why, but my Ubuntu image with unity always thinks it should run at 10fps. I had to hard set the frame rate in compizConfig at 60 fps to get it to run smoothly. Putting it here because it took me quite a while to figure out why it was 3D accelerated but still so slow.

I don't think mine ran at 10fps, but definitely felt laggy. Especially rendering Firefox.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#10

Post by nickjj » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:20 AM UTC

PaulKeeble wrote: post #8

christogreeff wrote: post #3

Has anyone done performance tests with different versions of VirtualBox? I often see entries in the changelog relating to "significantly improved performance".

I did a test for VMWare player verses Virtualbox and its no competition, VMWare is hands down a lot faster especially on anything GUI. I like what Virtualbox gives us but the performance is a problem.

I noticed the same thing. VMWare (at least in my experience) runs a GUI in Unity mode at pretty much the same speed as native for xubuntu guests. I/O performance over shared folders is really good in VMWare too.

The only problem is VMWare has abandoned Linux guests in Unity mode for newer releases of VMWare, which likely means you'll be stuck on 7.x and running older guest versions until the end of time.

For me, VirtualBox's deal breakers are:

- VBox doesn't support dual monitors in seamless mode while VMWare does.

- VBox is not capable of running another 64bit OS inside of itself through virtualization, so using Vagrant inside of VBox is not happening. VMWare does not have this limitation.