Comments on: Poor VirtualBox guest performance with Intel VT-X on Ubuntu 9.10 http://www.tolaris.com/2009/11/04/poor-virtualbox-guest-performance-with-intel-vt-x/ Back off, man. I'm a scientist. Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:54:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: IceTNet http://www.tolaris.com/2009/11/04/poor-virtualbox-guest-performance-with-intel-vt-x/comment-page-1/#comment-145 IceTNet Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:51:31 +0000 http://www.tolaris.com/?p=590#comment-145 Boom! Thanks. I was on the 32-bit architecture prior to 9.04 which is when I switched to 64-bit. I have been having issues with VirtualBox since. I could almost swear that it was related to the USB implementation, however, the issues were completely intermittent. I didn't even think about the VT-x stuff, I mean It's tested hardware right... Thanks, I disabled VT-x and the VM flies again. There is something with USB and VT-x, though. In my tests, copying 9GB of information to an NTFS thumb drive, Karmic would consistently pause every application (only when a VM was running) and my transfer rate for USB2.0 would drop down to mere 400kbps. Now that I've disabled VT-x, no problems yet. Thanks again. Boom!
Thanks. I was on the 32-bit architecture prior to 9.04 which is when I switched to 64-bit. I have been having issues with VirtualBox since. I could almost swear that it was related to the USB implementation, however, the issues were completely intermittent. I didn’t even think about the VT-x stuff, I mean It’s tested hardware right… Thanks, I disabled VT-x and the VM flies again.

There is something with USB and VT-x, though. In my tests, copying 9GB of information to an NTFS thumb drive, Karmic would consistently pause every application (only when a VM was running) and my transfer rate for USB2.0 would drop down to mere 400kbps. Now that I’ve disabled VT-x, no problems yet.

Thanks again.

]]>