Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

darkbeanies · 2009-04-27 12:00:52

Hello. I'm just trying out Virtualbox in a Windows host with Ubuntu, XP and Arch, and the outright loser in terms of performance is Arch. This is the absolute opposite to normal installation of these OS's on any machine I ever used. Arch normally piddles all over Ubuntu and XP in terms of speed. Instead, programs take ages to load, even stuff like terminal emulators, firefox and opera work rubbish (especially when trying to play flash video), and boot time is noticeably slower (despite my terrifying attempts at hacking the files described in the How to Boot Arch faster Wiki, thank goodness for the snapshot facility).

The host has 1Gb RAM, 128MB graphics memory, and I allocated 256Gb RAM and 24Mb graphics memory to each virtual machine. The other two guests run very well. For normal internet use there is very little performance drop. In Arch I am running xfce4 as a DE/WM and using firefox/opera as web browsers. I installed guest additions, added my daemons...it should work good, dammit!!!

I saw somewhere that Arch just flat out doesn't really like being in a virtual environment, is this correct? Regardless of the answer, does anyone have any useful tips and tricks that might speed things up a bit? It's like Virtual Ubuntu is pointing and laughing at the poor thing...

Lexion · 2009-04-27 12:03:47

Use the console only. I just have to say ouch...

darkbeanies · 2009-04-27 12:19:33

Good one. How about, "install on a real hard disk" as well?

Arien · 2009-04-27 12:38:24

Have you made sure that the vbox kernel modules are loaded? I can imagine that without them vbox would slow to a crawl.

darkbeanies · 2009-04-27 12:56:08

Ah, good question! Do you mean adding rc.vboxadd to rc.conf? Or do you mean something to do with vboxdrv added to modules? Because if it's the first one the answer is yes, but if it's the second, I was not able to do it and concluded that this just refers to when it is an Archlinux host, not guest. Am I wrong about this?

Thanks, Arien, if anyone could point out other possible stupid mistakes I may have made I would be grateful.

Last edited by darkbeanies (2009-04-27 13:04:04)

insanum · 2009-05-14 22:55:35

Well I am experiencing the same thing. Arch just isn't as snappy as Ubuntu running in virtualbox. I have Ubuntu and Arch running side by side under vbox and Ubuntu with full compiz stuff turned on is faster that my Arch running dwm. Firefox specifically is a dog...

Guest additions are installed:

[- ~ -] lsmod | grep box
vboxvideo               1844  1 
drm                   137440  2 vboxvideo
vboxvfs                42592  1 
vboxadd                70016  6 vboxvfs

Last edited by insanum (2009-05-14 22:57:03)

sand_man · 2009-05-14 23:57:39

I use Arch in VirtualBox at work (on Windows XP) and it is also quite slow. I just did a "lsmod | grep box" and vboxvideo didn't show up at all!
X doesn't complain when I load it in xorg.conf though and it is in /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/

(sorry to hijack. Didn't mean to )

edit:
Oh and I can't run firefox. I have to use epiphany.

Last edited by sand_man (2009-05-14 23:58:20)

djgera · 2009-05-15 00:11:47

@darkbeanies: To do these types of bench, you need to ensure two premises basically:

1) The virtual HD image used for this purpose is located in the same area of disk that the another installation. Different areas of disk, have diferent read/write speed. (At firsts sector are fast, but is reduced progressivelly until end.
2) This is a logically derivated from premise (1), but is good to clarify: The file must not be fragmented, use static HD not dynamic,

sand_man · 2009-05-15 06:22:22

I just installed Kubuntu in VirtualBox (Windows XP host) and it is lightning fast compared to Arch running Awesome. I can actually use Firefox in KDE 4.2

What makes Arch perform badly in a VM?
Both are static disks btw

Last edited by sand_man (2009-05-15 06:22:41)

Wittfella · 2009-05-15 07:00:14

Just to add my own anecdotal evidence, I also find Arch running under VirtualBox on WinXP to be sluggish compared to Kubuntu (the only other one I tried). Guest additions installed, same disk size, same memory etc.

Exactly as sand_man said, what could make Arch perform badly in a VM? I have no idea...

R00KIE · 2009-05-15 11:16:59

Different kernel versions?
Arch may be using a newer kernel than ubuntu and derivatives and that may be somehow degrading performance with vbox.

darkbeanies · 2009-05-15 11:43:15

Hmm, how interesting, I thought this thread died! Good to know that others are finding similar to me. Don't worry about "hijacking" the thread, that's what threads are for I think.

I think I remember seeing somewhere on the Yahooglenet that arch is somewhat notorious for running badly in a VM. It didn't say why or give any useful tips, though.

Does anyone have any comparisons to make between virtualbox and vmware running archlinux? I've always found virtualbox faster with other systems, but then, I say that about archlinux normally too!

sand_man · 2009-05-17 04:35:28

Well I've switched my VM to Kubuntu for the time being. I only really use it for connecting to a vpn network so it doesn't matter what OS it is but Arch is just painfully slow.

insanum · 2009-05-18 17:44:29

Ubuntu is using a slightly older kernel (2.6.28-11-generic) and for Arch current is 2.6.29.3-1. Looking at the kernel configs one glaring difference that would affect performance is the HZ settings. Ubuntu sets CONFIG_HZ_250 and Arch uses CONFIG_HZ_300. Has anyone tried custom kernels for an Arch guest?

Last edited by insanum (2009-05-18 17:44:57)

graysky · 2009-05-18 19:04:09

@insanum - I don't think the tick value matter... before I began running arch, I would mess with it and other kernel parameter under ubuntu 8.10 and found that 250=300=1000 for my usage anyway.

insanum · 2009-05-18 19:23:41

FYI, I've taken this issue to the Virtualbox Linux Guest forum:
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17862

farvardin · 2009-05-20 05:58:12

I don't find archlinux particularly slow in virtualbox in comparison to XP (I don't have ubuntu in VB), but when I'm using some kind of CPU scaling such as ondemand, my archlinux (running on archlinux host), seems quite slow. If I enable "performance" CPU (on the host, of course), with for example "cpufreq-set -g performance" it's much better.

keerthi · 2009-06-11 02:40:08

Same problem. Arch is very sluggish as a guest on Virtualbox. My host is Ubuntu (Jaunty).

Tried Ubuntu as guest with the VM configurations same as Arch's and Ubuntu runs like a butter. Very strange. I can't believe Arch could be so slow as a guest. Any help is much appreciated.

R00KIE · 2009-06-11 11:07:03

I found out that if you can run 64bit guests then arch runs just fine but if you run the 32bit kernel then it's very slow as reported here.

Wra!th · 2009-06-11 12:21:24

Screw Virtualbox, real live install..Arch fails at boot speed compared to Ubuntu 9.04.
One of the 9.04 release goals was uber fast boot ups and they did it..I get between 12 and 16 seconds compared to like 40-50 with Arch (and Ubuntu also starts GDM, I get the Arch time to login only)
Thank God people don't actually restart computers that often..otherwise Arch would be teh failure

Last edited by Wra!th (2009-06-11 12:22:21)

dunc · 2009-06-11 19:05:14

I was stunned at the boot speed of Ubuntu 9.04. I actually checked to see that everything was running properly the first time. It's insanely fast.

As for general running speed, I was beginning to think that my two-year-old Arch install was just getting crufted up, but having read this thread I'm not so sure...

Mind you, I haven't tried any other distros on this machine for ages, so I have no real comparison, and - boot time apart - Arch is definitely faster than 'buntu on my Aspire One.

Wra!th · 2009-06-11 19:12:50

Latest Ubuntu is ftw. No doubt about it. I mean it's like 3 times faster (atleast boot-wise) than Arch, and starts like 3 times more daemons than a configured Arch.
In-desktop it's not at all slow. Works better with effects out of the box on my laptop than arch with any type of compositing.and it took absolutetly no configuration. it was all ootb...

madalu · 2009-06-11 19:28:55

Wra!th wrote:

Latest Ubuntu is ftw. No doubt about it. I mean it's like 3 times faster (atleast boot-wise) than Arch, and starts like 3 times more daemons than a configured Arch.
In-desktop it's not at all slow. Works better with effects out of the box on my laptop than arch with any type of compositing.and it took absolutetly no configuration. it was all ootb...

Any hard statistics comparing Ubuntu 9.04 and Arch? It would be nice to get some numbers...

Edit: O.K. I see you put some numbers up above. 40-50 seconds for Arch? I've never had an Arch boot take that long. How many daemons are you running?

Last edited by madalu (2009-06-11 19:31:05)

wonder · 2009-06-11 19:31:12

well this thread is about archlinux and others in virtualbox in which archlinux is slower. don't hijack the thread. open a new thread and discuss there about how fast is ubuntu.

madalu · 2009-06-11 19:38:53

wonder wrote:

well this thread is about archlinux and others in virtualbox in which archlinux is slower. don't hijack the thread. open a new thread and discuss there about how fast is ubuntu.

Oops... I was just responding to the last several posts in the topic. I'll read the subject line more carefully next time.

On topic: I found Arch quite speedy and responsive in VirtualBox on OS X. For what its worth, I did install and load the virtual box kernel modules. Alas, since I recently wiped out my OS X install, I'm not able to do further testing at the moment. But I had no complaints about the speed.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-04-27 12:00:52

Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#2 2009-04-27 12:03:47

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#3 2009-04-27 12:19:33

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#4 2009-04-27 12:38:24

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#5 2009-04-27 12:56:08

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#6 2009-05-14 22:55:35

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#7 2009-05-14 23:57:39

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#8 2009-05-15 00:11:47

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#9 2009-05-15 06:22:22

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#10 2009-05-15 07:00:14

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#11 2009-05-15 11:16:59

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#12 2009-05-15 11:43:15

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#13 2009-05-17 04:35:28

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#14 2009-05-18 17:44:29

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#15 2009-05-18 19:04:09

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#16 2009-05-18 19:23:41

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#17 2009-05-20 05:58:12

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#18 2009-06-11 02:40:08

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#19 2009-06-11 11:07:03

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#20 2009-06-11 12:21:24

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#21 2009-06-11 19:05:14

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#22 2009-06-11 19:12:50

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#23 2009-06-11 19:28:55

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#24 2009-06-11 19:31:12

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

#25 2009-06-11 19:38:53

Re: Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

Board footer