my virtualbox experience (jnode 0.2.7)

i'm not sure if anyone reads this but here is th report of my rather sad experience with jnode 0.2.7 inside virtualbox 2.04 (on top of xp-sp2. CPU AMD X2 4850e, 2.5GHz).

with VT enabled jnode freezes after "enable paging".

without VT booting is possible and takes almost endless time (more than 6 minutes). with the same settings windows xp boots in 15s.

acpi crashes:
Cannot start acpi
java.lang.NullPointerException: NPE at address 0E6C6F7A
at or.jnode.driver.system.acpi.AcpiDriver.startDevice(

dhcp crashes when I tried to start it:
Cannot configure device eth-pci(0,3,0)

both errors messages are not significant in any way.

may things work slow, ivoking a command the first time etc.

running the "gc" command takes 30s.

the CPU consumption (of virtual box) is always 100%!

there is no way to find out who consumes the CPU.

i have tested alot of esoteric operating systems but many of them are "highly functional" compared to this.

almost any step gave me a "minefield" feeling.

you should use vmware

You should use vmware server or vmware workstation : they are faster than virtual box.

If you have linux, you should try kvm (kernel virtual machine) which will use the VT feature of your CPU and give you even more performance than vmware.

Something else, how much memory do you give to your virtual machine ? You should give 256Mb and if possible 512Mb.


my blog : en fran├žais, in english or both


> You should use vmware server or vmware workstation : they are faster than virtual box.

I don't agree. I switched to virtual box, because it is faster for desktop emulation. They even support OpenGL, VT-x/AMD-V.
VirtualBox performance is almost native.

It's all about JNode

As you might have noticed, this forum and this thread are all about JNode Smiling
JNode does not support OpenGL and vbox is slow as hell (I do not know why, but I suspect that vbox is not so good with ring0 code).
So in case you still don't agree, please try it yourself Eye-wink

And in contrast to the initial thread I'd strongly suggest kvm if you have a VT CPU.

RE: you should use vmware

fabien, thank you for the reply.

i used 512MB, this should be sufficient.

i prefer virtualbox for many reasons (e.g. open source, portable version availabe), and so far all operating systems worked fine and fast enough.

can you say anything about the CPU consumption?
do you think this "graceful" errors are OK?

regards, cspot