From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 8 17:27:24 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078CB106564A for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 17:27:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matheusber@gmail.com) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62C78FC15 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 17:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so881053qwe.7 for ; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:received:received :message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-priority:importance; bh=qp5oqoftqutMF02HuzZOoO7XdBDROgngljl+bxjLl+0=; b=sYmXzMnCoGtHifFbZwTmje1A24M+qBepWXQaHGtKobk4JsPFzhWWm8Sl/mMpxpMvyU 4zeWFfSAJ3lEkBZrMbnmdsNcqXO7e4V6uuMgcUplop1D6h3cTZ63yk/4Pr7cB6lxsl6I XrFHfegVB5lLPPHxQxEdRfRU2ljY3jylcfL3U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-priority:importance; b=u5FZL2tD0oR/OyTs24555d54+2OK3nGigNUetCQB1PhI1b5+2C4tGB7dpdlUT4pqoZ jDoyB5JSyAiLAJlx0ytwpCeBcSCveJjogMR/Gin9dpk1ssf/YDqV92l051de6/f764+h AamorW/A7/qurotUhw2YO43s/PP5XTBfM4geQ= Received: by 10.224.74.81 with SMTP id t17mr2013661qaj.149.1249752442668; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cygnus.homeunix.com ([189.71.108.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 2sm6704686qwi.43.2009.08.08.10.27.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Nenhum_de_Nos Received: by cygnus.homeunix.com (Postfix, from userid 80) id 2E45CB80A3; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:27:16 -0300 (BRT) Received: from 10.1.1.80 (SquirrelMail authenticated user matheus) by 10.1.1.10 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:27:15 -0300 (BRT) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200908081651.n78GpDjV004629@triton8.kn-bremen.de> References: <200908081651.n78GpDjV004629@triton8.kn-bremen.de> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:27:15 -0300 (BRT) From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" To: "Juergen Lock" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, Jeremy Messenger Subject: Re: VirtualBox NAT network works or not? X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:27:24 -0000 On Sat, August 8, 2009 13:51, Juergen Lock wrote: > In article you > write: >>On Tue, July 28, 2009 00:39, Jeremy Messenger wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have installed VirtualBox and very surpised about that it's very >>> fast. >>> Very nice! >>> >>> But I have a problem with NAT network and uses DHCP in guest. It does >>> not >>> work. The host is yesterday -CURRENT and very latest installed ports >>> with >>> libtool 2.2. I don't know how I can debug it. I have decided to install >>> VirtualBox in Windows 7 and I have setup very same exactly how I do >>> with >>> guest of FreeBSD 6.4. It works perfect. The only difference is that >>> VirtualBox version is 3.x in Windows and 2.x in -CURRENT. It is either >>> bug >>> or not ready? I have tried to disable VT-x and it makes no difference. >>> I >>> have tried all network adapter and no difference. >> > I've had nat mode problems too (guests randomly failing to dhcp on the > first attempt, have to manually run `dhclient eth0' a second time > in the guest), and the official vbox changelog, > http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog > mentions > NAT: fixed network communication corruptions (bugs #4499, #4540, #4591, > #4604) > for their 3.0.4 release too, so maybe we just need to wait for these > fixes to reach the FreeBSD port... I had problems in a work box where ssh portforwarding was not good. the box has no firewall at all. the same thing worked here at home ok. >>I've been using Vbox 3 in FreeBSD for a bit more of a week now, and it is >>doing what I want it to. >> >>the svn >> >>svn co >>http://svn.bluelife.at/projects/packages/blueports/emulators/virtualbox >> >>I can use nat, but still trying to figure out how to reach the vm using >>network. if anyone has any leads. so far, the best thing I think is to >>make a reverse tunnel using ssh. >> > vbox' nat mode, like qemu's, can map individual guest ports to > ones on the host (port forwarding), see here for details: > http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/UserManual.html#networking-nat good to hear that, will read asap. thanks :) >>matheus >> >>ps: I can't use my amd64 vm's if not from 7.2-STABLE. -CURRENT is no good >>in here, tested three diff machines by now. > > I have problems parsing this, :) you mean amd64 guests stopped > working on -current? Guess I should test that here... I have two machines (real ones) running FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE (one from late July, other mid June) and using vbox from this svn port ok. I have amd64 vm's (one each) and VT-x is enabled in both (if is really working I can't tell, but I can use both cores in the vm and folding at home performance is paired to the real native linux) and it is quite stable. I'd really like to do this in 8.0 (now in beta state), but I'm unable to do so as I get errors from vbox or machine crashes. so 7.2-STABLE is ok but the soon to be born 8.0 is not :( thanks, matheus > HTH, > Juergen > -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style