VirtualBox 2.1 Supports 64-Bit VM In 32-Bit Host

Stephen Birch writes "Following closely behind the mid-November 2.06 release of VirtualBox, Sun Microsystems has released version 2.1. This has a number of new features, but one of the most interesting is the ability to run a 64-bit VM inside a 32-bit host. Another useful feature is integrated host-based networking; no more fiddling around with network bridges. Sun is really giving VMWare a run for their money."

Comments

Re:.. and ..

[Anonymous Coward]

The part of this I am looking forward too is the future plan to allow DX using the host hardware iwthin the guest. So I can finally drop a native windows install for gaming.

Re:Good products

[seizurebattlerobot]

I have to disagree. VirtualBox has the makings of a good product, but right now is too buggy and unreliable to be used in a production environment.

Most of the unreliability that I've encountered stems from virtual disk management. For example, if you have a virtual machine with a CD ISO mounted, what happens if you stop that machine and delete the ISO? This:

VM cannot start because the hard disk '/home/seizurebattlerobot/.VirtualBox/VDI/Windows Vista.vdi' is not accessible (Could not access hard disk image '/home/seizurebattlerobot/.VirtualBox/VDI/Windows Vista.vdi' (VERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND)).

Result Code:
NS_ERROR_FAILURE (0x80004005)
Component:
Console
Interface:
IConsole {ddc6fda1-a435-45ca-b43d-f9e88746e53e}

The only way to get the machine into a usable state again is to manually edit the virtual machine definition, which is a lot more complex than one would immediately think. Just look at the VirtualBox bug tracker for some horror stories.

The disk snapshot feature is also a mess and can result in data loss if you are not extremely familiar with how the underlying implementation works. The GUI dialogs that control snapshots are poorly documented and are definitely not production quality.

It is also not possible to shrink a virtual disk that uses snapshots. Normal GUI based activity has resulted in an inconsistent snapshot tree state that has caused data loss for me numerous times.

In short, I would recommend VirtualBox for anyone that wants a virtualization sandbox to play around in. To anyone concerned about data integrity, hates troubleshooting obscure and difficult to track down error messages, or wants to use disk snapshots at all, I would recommend waiting a few years before considering VirtualBox.

Re:Virtualbox is superior to VMware

[mc900ftjesus]

My anecdotal evidence disagrees with all of your anecdotal evidence. I have never had a problem with VMWare stability, RAM usage, CPU utilization or interface.

But really, your entire argument is crap the second you use the term "snapily" or "snappy." If you're angry at VMWare, and you install VirtualBox, your first impression will be that it's so much "snappier" even if the two are neck and neck. This is a stupid term, stop using it.

Sorry, but your points are pretty worthless because you don't back any of it up, you just cry "unstable" and we're all supposed to agree with your blind rage.

Re:Great, needed this as of last week..

[Jamie's Nightmare]

I like Slashdot because you don't need any evidence or sources to back up any claims. Just say something to appease the zealots and have instant credibility.