VirtualBox 3.1 Released, Introduces "Teleportation" and Improves Snapshots

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
From our front-page news:
This past summer, Sun released a new major version of its popular virtualization software, VirtualBox. For fans of the tool, 3.0 brought a slew of notable features, including support for 3D graphics, increased allowed number of virtual CPUs, and a barrage of bug fixes and improved support for a wide-range of guest OS'. The first major update to the latest version is 3.1, just released yesterday. It arguably brings even more to the table than 3.0 did, so it's definitely worth an upgrade.

One new feature is called "Teleportation", also known as live migration, and though it doesn't have much use from a desktop perspective, it's going to be heavily used in workstation/server environments. It's an interesting feature, and one I am looking forward to testing out, because although the time when a live migration needs to be done at home is rare, I have run into a few circumstances where the feature would have been nice to have.

The software's ability to handle snapshots has been much improved as well, with the limitation of one snapshot being ceased. You can now create multiple snapshots of a VM if you like, and to take things one step further, you can even create branched-snapshots - snapshots that are a fork of another. This, like Teleportation, isn't going to be used all too often in a desktop environment, but the feature is again going to be much appreciated by developers, and possibly also server admins.

In 3.0, VirtualBox introduced improved 3D support, and in 3.1, it's 2D that gets some attention. The latest version has the ability to access the host's graphics hardware to accelerate certain aspects of video. In this case, it seems limited to overlay stretching and color conversion, but that could no doubt be expanded in the future. There's many more new features to be had, such as the ability to change your networking device while a VM is running, the introduction of EFI and more.

If you're a VirtualBox user, 3.1 is well worth taking the time to upgrade for. For those who've never used VirtualBox, or might have not even dabbled in virtualization, I recommend you check it out, as it's a completely free application. I wrote an article a few months ago that tackled an introduction to virtualization, so definitely give it a read if your curiosity is piqued! I will also be taking a hard look at 3.1 in the coming weeks, so stay tuned for an article to be posted sometime this month.


VirtualBox is a powerful x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization product for enterprise as well as home use. Not only is VirtualBox an extremely feature rich, high performance product for enterprise customers, it is also the only professional solution that is freely available as Open Source Software under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Presently, VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh and OpenSolaris hosts and supports a large number of guest operating systems including but not limited to Windows (NT 4.0, 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, Windows 7), DOS/Windows 3.x, Linux (2.4 and 2.6), Solaris and OpenSolaris, and OpenBSD.


Source: VirtualBox
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Gave this a try while waiting for a Sysmark run to finish... they weren't kidding when they said it wasn't exactly user friendly (try making a VM from a disk image, oi), but once the user knows how the program works it's not half bad. It's just that first step that will cause issues, but once you realize how to tell the program to do something it's quick. VMware is significantly more user friendly, offers some nice advanced VM options such as cloning, virtual disk extension, and some others but that's about it.

And since it supports as many vCPU's as the host PC has logical CPU's (VMware appears to only allow vCPUs = physical cores), I think I might be using this for my upcoming F@H program instead of VMware... Now if I can just get the program to tell Ubuntu I'd like a bigger resolution I'll be golden. :D
 
Last edited:

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Now if I can just get the program to tell Ubuntu I'd like a bigger resolution I'll be golden. :D

It's imperative to install the Guest Additions, because that adds that kind of support. Even with it installed, though, the resolutions listed are foolish, so I always find myself manually stretching the window to whatever resolution I want.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
It's imperative to install the Guest Additions, because that adds that kind of support. Even with it installed, though, the resolutions listed are foolish, so I always find myself manually stretching the window to whatever resolution I want.

Thanks for the tip! When I dived into VMware they said up front that VMware tools would be needed in order to modify the guest OS resolutions, but I saw no mention of it with VirtualBox during the install process. VB is definitely not as user friendly if jumping in headfirst without any prior experience or preparation whatsoever, but by the second run through a savvy user should be fine. :)
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Since I (finally) had a good moment to install the official RTM version of Windows 7, the second thing I did was install Virtualbox and its tools. For those that may not know I run Ubuntu 9.10 64bit as a guest OS inside Windows 7 64bit for Folding@home purposes. After all what good is having a super-powerful desktop if you can't do something useful and constructive with it?

After having a few days to run projects, I can safely say that VMware Player is a much better program. It is not just more user friendly, but it offers significantly better load handling.

Folding Project 2683 requires 8 CU threads each running at a constant 100% utilization, needing as much as 4.6GB of RAM inside Ubuntu. Now I tested VirtualBox 3.1 and VMware Player 3 (using a config file hack to allow 8 threads per single CPU socket, which VB does offer natively) with this same project. Rounding to the nearest minute:

VirtualBox 38 minutes per run
VMware 31 minutes per run

Every F@H project requires 100 runs. Rounding on the math means VirtualBox requires an additional 12 hours of processing, or rather it takes 12 hours longer with the CPU going full throttle to complete the same project!

That isn't all either. VirtualBox would make the system laggy, spiking the CPU constantly from 96-100% in Task Manager. VMware Player would hold steady at a near constant 99% and there were no intermittent lag spikes.

Unfortunately it only takes editing of two lines in VMware's config file to allow it to spawn 8 threads for Core i7 CPU's, and given VMware Player's advantages in both high-workload conditions and it's much better optimizations that ensure high-loads don't make the host system unusable, I think VMware is a much better choice all around.
 
Last edited:
Top