Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

aliasbody · 2011-12-21 13:55:40

Hello everyone,

I have installed virtualbox on my Arch Linux machine, an Asus 1215N with Atom D525 Dual Core (no virtualization support), with 2GB of ram and an Nvidia Optimus (I thinks this will talk to all...), and for my school works (that require working with Ubuntu just to show that we know, and Windows for XNA and Visual Studio).

I know my pc is not a war machine, and virtualization isn't a good idea at all... but I excepted Virtualbox at least to try to use all my Hardware so I can emulate something like Ubuntu or Windows 7/XP smoothely enough to not hit my head into a wall...

But the problem is, that when trying Ubuntu (on the picture below, Ubuntu Live CD after installing), it turns out to be extremely slow when moving the mouse, opening a window etc... At start I thaught it was because of my Intel, so I opened virtualbox using optirun (for those don't having the same problem as "we" Optimus users, after installing bumblebee this is a way to .. partially use the nvidia... just enough for some games), and start using my Nvidia (with the 3D acceleration option on) with Ubuntu, nothing to do, it was slow ! (PS : Ubuntu starts with Unity-2D in the LiveCD.. for me at least).

I was excepting that when opening the system monitor he showes me my CPU being fully used, but it was not the case... as an example, at this moment when writing this post I am running the Virtual Machine with Ubuntu 11.10 in background and some other stuffs and my PC is as fast as normal....

So my question is (and sorry for the long post :S...) :
Is this (the speed problem) a problem with Ubuntu, Virtualbox or simply my computer ? And if is the 3º then why Virtualbox just don't use the maximum resources ?...

PSS : I have allocated 768mb de ram for Ubuntu (I think it is enough), and I have allocated 128mb GPU Memory and activated the 3D function..

EDIT : I forgot the picture sorry :S

Thank you in advance reading and answering,
Luis Da Costa

Last edited by aliasbody (2011-12-21 14:03:29)

drcouzelis · 2011-12-22 03:28:50

Have you looked at your BIOS settings?

I run Haiku in VirtualBox. I told my coworker it wasn't running as fast as I thought it should, and he asked if I looked at any of my BIOS settings. That was my problem. Now Haiku pretty much runs as if it was running native.

I can't remember what the setting was, but I think it was kind of obvious when I saw it, and the setting is labelled a little differently in every BIOS anyway. I think it's related to the "Enable PAE/NX" setting in VirtualBox. (Settings -> System -> Processor)

sand_man · 2011-12-22 03:32:52

Do Atom's even have virtualisation extensions?
Before these extensions existed, virtualisation was quite slow. It's only a guess but I would say what you are experiencing is normal for your hardware.

aliasbody · 2011-12-22 13:41:50

drcouzelis wrote:

Have you looked at your BIOS settings?
I run Haiku in VirtualBox. I told my coworker it wasn't running as fast as I thought it should, and he asked if I looked at any of my BIOS settings. That was my problem. Now Haiku pretty much runs as if it was running native.
I can't remember what the setting was, but I think it was kind of obvious when I saw it, and the setting is labelled a little differently in every BIOS anyway. I think it's related to the "Enable PAE/NX" setting in VirtualBox. (Settings -> System -> Processor)

I will try to enable the PAE/NX option, but as "sand_man" said, I'm prety sure it is my hardware that don't support virtualization :S.. I will try both just to see...

PS : I have seen that sometimes the CPU is up for 70% 80% in the host, but in the Guest OS it is at 100% is this normal ? Thanks in advance.
PSS : Windows 7 seems to run better than Ubuntu 10.04 on virtualbox... wierd....

sakisds · 2011-12-22 19:09:02

aliasbody wrote:

drcouzelis wrote:
Have you looked at your BIOS settings?
I run Haiku in VirtualBox. I told my coworker it wasn't running as fast as I thought it should, and he asked if I looked at any of my BIOS settings. That was my problem. Now Haiku pretty much runs as if it was running native.
I can't remember what the setting was, but I think it was kind of obvious when I saw it, and the setting is labelled a little differently in every BIOS anyway. I think it's related to the "Enable PAE/NX" setting in VirtualBox. (Settings -> System -> Processor)
I will try to enable the PAE/NX option, but as "sand_man" said, I'm prety sure it is my hardware that don't support virtualization :S.. I will try both just to see...
PS : I have seen that sometimes the CPU is up for 70% 80% in the host, but in the Guest OS it is at 100% is this normal ? Thanks in advance.
PSS : Windows 7 seems to run better than Ubuntu 10.04 on virtualbox... wierd....

About the first PS, vitrualbox has a default CPU quota of about 80% so your host OS doesn't become unresponsive if a Guest one goes nuts. You can change it in the VM options window.
Also, do you have virtualbox-additions installed at Ubuntu? I think it includes some display drivers to improve performance a bit.

aliasbody · 2011-12-22 21:29:30

sakisds wrote:

aliasbody wrote:
drcouzelis wrote:
Have you looked at your BIOS settings?
I run Haiku in VirtualBox. I told my coworker it wasn't running as fast as I thought it should, and he asked if I looked at any of my BIOS settings. That was my problem. Now Haiku pretty much runs as if it was running native.
I can't remember what the setting was, but I think it was kind of obvious when I saw it, and the setting is labelled a little differently in every BIOS anyway. I think it's related to the "Enable PAE/NX" setting in VirtualBox. (Settings -> System -> Processor)
I will try to enable the PAE/NX option, but as "sand_man" said, I'm prety sure it is my hardware that don't support virtualization :S.. I will try both just to see...
PS : I have seen that sometimes the CPU is up for 70% 80% in the host, but in the Guest OS it is at 100% is this normal ? Thanks in advance.
PSS : Windows 7 seems to run better than Ubuntu 10.04 on virtualbox... wierd....
About the first PS, vitrualbox has a default CPU quota of about 80% so your host OS doesn't become unresponsive if a Guest one goes nuts. You can change it in the VM options window.
Also, do you have virtualbox-additions installed at Ubuntu? I think it includes some display drivers to improve performance a bit.

The quota is set to 100% by default on my virtualbox, and virtualbox-additions are installed... I have searched a little bit and find out that my Atom do not support Virtualization (If I remember right, there are out there a type of Atom Processor that support VT-x but I don't remember what), My netbook isn't just enough for virtualisation even with the dual core 1.8ghz :S....

Just a last question, my netbook as a 32bits version of Arch Linux, installing the 64Bits could change something ?...

Thanks in advance,
Luis Da Costa

aliasbody · 2011-12-22 21:42:42

For those interested here are a list of Intel Atom with Virtualization support (VT-x) :

E620 / E620T / E640 / E640T / E645C / E645CT / E660 / E660T / E665C / E665CT / E680 / E680T
and
Z520 / Z520PT / Z530 / Z530P / Z540 / Z550 / Z560

Information found here : http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx

MadCat_X · 2011-12-23 00:11:42

- The lack of hardware virtualization is your biggest problem, you can't expect any virtualized OS to run smooth unless your CPU supports this feature, if you really need Ubuntu, perhaps you could switch to some lighter version like Xubuntu or Lubuntu.

- There is really no reason why you should be running 32bit kernel in 2011, 64bit Linux kernel has been proven significantly faster under certain workloads, it wouldn't help with VirtualBox though.

- If you find VirtualBox slow, perhaps you could give KVM a try. It wouldn't be magically faster, but every little bit will probably help in your case.

- Are you sure you have installed the VirtualBox drivers in the _guest_ OS? VirtualBox supports some basic 3D acceleration and my virtualized Ubuntu runs Unity 3D with no problems when I install the drivers.

aliasbody · 2011-12-23 00:44:05

MadCat_X wrote:

- The lack of hardware virtualization is your biggest problem, you can't expect any virtualized OS to run smooth unless your CPU supports this feature, if you really need Ubuntu, perhaps you could switch to some lighter version like Xubuntu or Lubuntu.

I only need Ubuntu for some quick works at school (Operating System class) this is why I don't install it side-by-side with arch linux for example. So there is really no possibility to use any other version (I've tried to use my Arch instead :S)...

MadCat_X wrote:

- There is really no reason why you should be running 32bit kernel in 2011, 64bit Linux kernel has been proven significantly faster under certain workloads, it wouldn't help with VirtualBox though.

The only big reason for me to continue using a 32Bits system is simply Bumblebee, I have too many system packages from aur and I simply don't trust them :S... I was waiting for my Nvidia Optimus to work natively before make the switch but I think I will retry soon ^^

MadCat_X wrote:

- If you find VirtualBox slow, perhaps you could give KVM a try. It wouldn't be magically faster, but every little bit will probably help in your case.

KVM ? I found this on the Arch Wiki :

As with Xen's full virtualization, in order for KVM to work, you must have a processor that supports Intel's VT-x extensions or AMD's AMD-V extensions.

Is this the same thing :S ? Have you ever had any expierence with qemu ? I always wanted to know if it was faster than Virtualbox...

MadCat_X wrote:

- Are you sure you have installed the VirtualBox drivers in the _guest_ OS? VirtualBox supports some basic 3D acceleration and my virtualized Ubuntu runs Unity 3D with no problems when I install the drivers.

100% Sure it is installed, but I've noticed that I've made a Kernel Update, and so the modules were gone, so I reinstalled them, and Unity3D was working, but no speed boosts at all :S.... The only diference is that with Windows 7 (already with the "additions" since the begining") I could play terraria very well... because of the Direct3D support, but even with Ubuntu 10.04, 11.04 or 11.10 I have graphical glitches just by using glxgears with the Virtualbox Additions....

Thanks in advance for all you answers ^^
Luis Da Costa

MadCat_X · 2011-12-23 11:28:42

aliasbody wrote:

I only need Ubuntu for some quick works at school (Operating System class) this is why I don't install it side-by-side with arch linux for example. So there is really no possibility to use any other version (I've tried to use my Arch instead :S)...

Are you saying that your school classes somehow depend on Unity or the apps that come with full-blown Ubuntu? Well... that's rather bad.

aliasbody wrote:

The only big reason for me to continue using a 32Bits system is simply Bumblebee, I have too many system packages from aur and I simply don't trust them :S... I was waiting for my Nvidia Optimus to work natively before make the switch but I think I will retry soon ^^

I don't think there are (theoretically) any problems with 64bit kernels and Bumblebee. I had Bumblebee running on 64bit Fedora 16, but for some odd reason when I switched to Arch on that machine, Bumblebee died and I eventually gave up trying to get it working.

aliasbody wrote:

KVM ? I found this on the Arch Wiki :
As with Xen's full virtualization, in order for KVM to work, you must have a processor that supports Intel's VT-x extensions or AMD's AMD-V extensions.
Is this the same thing :S ? Have you ever had any expierence with qemu ? I always wanted to know if it was faster than Virtualbox...

You're right, KVM needs hardware virtualization to work. I only saw benchmarks of VBox vs QEmu vs Xen when HW virtualization was available, so I don't think they are of any relevance (QEmu+KVM was slightly faster than the competition in most of the tests though). You might give it a try though, I'm quite curious about this myself:)

Phoronix: Xen vs. KVM vs. VirtualBox

aliasbody · 2011-12-23 16:25:27

MadCat_X wrote:

aliasbody wrote:
I only need Ubuntu for some quick works at school (Operating System class) this is why I don't install it side-by-side with arch linux for example. So there is really no possibility to use any other version (I've tried to use my Arch instead :S)...
Are you saying that your school classes somehow depend on Unity or the apps that come with full-blown Ubuntu? Well... that's rather bad.

No they don't use Unity, they just want us to use Ubuntu, because of 1 - Gnome, and 2 - Ubuntu... nothing more , some configurations etc... just for us to show that we know how to use Linux... But because they had a problem with their PC's I was trying to put Ubuntu on a VM on my netbook to not waste 1hour finding one that was working every week, just that ^^

MadCat_X wrote:

aliasbody wrote:
The only big reason for me to continue using a 32Bits system is simply Bumblebee, I have too many system packages from aur and I simply don't trust them :S... I was waiting for my Nvidia Optimus to work natively before make the switch but I think I will retry soon ^^
I don't think there are (theoretically) any problems with 64bit kernels and Bumblebee. I had Bumblebee running on 64bit Fedora 16, but for some odd reason when I switched to Arch on that machine, Bumblebee died and I eventually gave up trying to get it working.

I've looked at the Bumblebee package in the aur, now there is only 4 packages to installe that are not present in the "Official Repositories", just don't know the diference in performance between gcc(x64) and gcc(multilib) needed to run 32bits apps with Bumblebee... But since this anouncement I am pretty confiant that Optimus working natively in Linux (even with just the Nouveau drivers), it now just a question of Months... not years ^^.

So I will try, maybe today or tomorow to install de Arch Linux x64 ^^

MadCat_X wrote:

aliasbody wrote:
KVM ? I found this on the Arch Wiki :
As with Xen's full virtualization, in order for KVM to work, you must have a processor that supports Intel's VT-x extensions or AMD's AMD-V extensions.
Is this the same thing :S ? Have you ever had any expierence with qemu ? I always wanted to know if it was faster than Virtualbox...
You're right, KVM needs hardware virtualization to work. I only saw benchmarks of VBox vs QEmu vs Xen when HW virtualization was available, so I don't think they are of any relevance (QEmu+KVM was slightly faster than the competition in most of the tests though). You might give it a try though, I'm quite curious about this myself:)
Phoronix: Xen vs. KVM vs. VirtualBox

The tests are awesome, I've heard that with KVM the VM is close to native speed, but that close it's just impresive !... Bad that I don't have any KVM-capable CPU... The real problem with QEmu, as I seen in the link you send me (last page if I remember right) is that there is no good 3D support for VM as in Virtualbox... I've also tried to download vmware player, just to take a look, but the only version available in the Officiel Repositories is the OpenSource one... and I don't find any information explaining how it works :S:..

Thanks in Advance,
Luis Da Costa

Arch Linux

#1 2011-12-21 13:55:40

Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#2 2011-12-22 03:28:50

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#3 2011-12-22 03:32:52

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#4 2011-12-22 13:41:50

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#5 2011-12-22 19:09:02

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#6 2011-12-22 21:29:30

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#7 2011-12-22 21:42:42

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#8 2011-12-23 00:11:42

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#9 2011-12-23 00:44:05

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#10 2011-12-23 11:28:42

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

#11 2011-12-23 16:25:27

Re: Why is Virtualbox slow when my processor isn't used at 50% ? [Netbook]

Board footer