From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 11 22:10:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDD9106566B for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:10:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matheusber@gmail.com) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA428FC15 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so473290qwe.7 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:10:05 -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:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :importance; bh=kg0jgA4Cm8k6TDUXjU1devPzibF+vU/eRdcA1xeSSZk=; b=tclYjEahsXwEc2GigX7OsCDzYxWKoRENjV/MRRIexba2mnbjJzWGwa0Hecsb8J1T5x u0KceA04+OvEvb2zgJ4xlXqQuZausy2iy323IgSmjA7Fv0MbVEMDtmOWWu0wDdKJAGvl X2dzTu8lkBMTQvWcIehMiP9JQfMbd6BfggCLc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-priority:importance; b=ltNz5keTj3VoEodNLPempTx1gdMhsaPbK+8l9o/qHjq3cAt9WChloMTlBTfpHl30/o Urrc9X4iB0AMNG64kjVNMTS1ko2mydUTQEVrFuqawB44/jUenvKLGy14SdgsB3ZuiyP0 dYhXv/RcSL4Wx5VZRNUiwAKCP41I1ieSgyCfI= Received: by 10.224.82.85 with SMTP id a21mr3095074qal.108.1252707005537; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cygnus.homeunix.com ([189.71.78.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm462991qwe.35.2009.09.11.15.10.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Nenhum_de_Nos Received: by cygnus.homeunix.com (Postfix, from userid 80) id 85C6DB805F; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:09:58 -0300 (BRT) Received: from 189.71.78.57 (SquirrelMail authenticated user matheus) by cygnus.homeunix.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:09:58 -0300 (BRT) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:09:58 -0300 (BRT) From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org 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 Subject: Re: New Virtualbox port (from today) 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: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:10:06 -0000 On Fri, September 11, 2009 11:07, Ivan Voras wrote: > Hi, > > VirtualBox now works with VT and I'm able to run SMP guests! > > But apparently it's not very stable (got two boot crashes) and something > is wrong with timers: in my testes, I never got so far as a boot when using any 8.x > Example 1: host HZ=250, guest HZ=1000, - guest time apparently speeds up > more than it should > > Example 2: same host, guest HZ=100 - guest time apparently goes 5x > slower than real (wall) time. > > Example 3: same host, guest HZ=25, guest time apparently 2x slower than > real (wall) time. > > In the examples, host is amd64 8-BETA2, 4CPU, guest is 7.2-RELEASE i386, > 2CPU. I tried on a quite close system. intel or amd yours ? maybe its time to try again. my system was built from scratch. any particular tip ? matheus > Internally the time is always consistent - for example in the second > case "time sleep 2" says the guest slept 2 seconds, while in real time, > 10 seconds have passed. > > Time apparently goes normal when the guest is configured with only one > CPU (and VT is still active). > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-emulation-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- 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