Quoting "Gustau Pérez" <gpe...@entel.upc.edu>:
Al 19/07/2011 08:40, En/na Peter Ross ha escrit:
Quoting "Gustau Pérez" <gpe...@entel.upc.edu>:
Al 13/07/2011 23:57, En/na Peter Ross ha escrit:
I have a problem with the network while running VirtualBox.
As soon as I _run_ a VirtualBox I am not able to copy large files
(e.g. virtual disks or ZFS snapshots) using ssh/scp to another
machine.
The ssh crashes with "Write failed: Cannot allocate memory"
thrown by a write(2) in /usr/src/crypto/openssh/roaming_common.c
(in function roaming_write). It returns the ENOMEM (an error it
should never return, according to the mainpage;-)
It is immediately working when I stop the VirtualBox, even if the
VirtualBox kernel modules are still loaded.
..
I experienced the problem with VirtualBox 3.2 first but the
upgrade to VirtualBox 4.0.8 and the base system recently did not
help.
I have AMD64/STABLE+virtualbox[4.0.10|4.1Beta] on a Dell R710
with two scenarios:
1.- Sending large files from the host to the guest with scp.
1,. rsync+ssh in the host machine (with virtualbox) sending
large files to a remote machine.
in fact both scenarios are the same, the host machine sending
large chunks of data. Both fail as it fails to everyone in the list.
Ok. So far so good. To track down the problem I tested may
changes of configuration with STABLE (if you want the details
please let me know and I'll send them to the list). None did the
trick. I even tried communications between the host and the guest
with vboxnet. scp failed with the "no memory allocation" problem.
Now I tried AMD64/CURRENT+virtualbox 4.0.10 on a laptop. I
tested an scenario like the one described in number 1. It worked
just fine. In fact I tried something like this in the host machine
just to be sure:
# for i in {1..10}
do
cat "large_file.data" | ssh -l root
192.168.56.101 "cat -> /dev/null"
done
Where 192.168.56.101 is the guest machine (I'm using vboxnet).
This large file is 8 Gb file. So it gave me an 80Gb transfer. It
worked fine. This scenario would have failed with STABLE.
So I guess it has something to do with the combo
STABLE+Virtualbox. There must a change in CURRENT that doesn't
trigger the problem. I think it would be appropriate if anyone
else could also try with CURRENT.
As an addition I remember all of this worked with 8.1 and an
early version of virtualbox 3.2 series . But I can't say which
revision of 8.1 I had when I was using that kind of scenarios.
I experienced the problem first on VirtualBox 3.2 and
FreeBSD-8.2-PRERELEASE. Marlon already in September 2010.
The laptop isn't the ultimate test as long as you haven't the same
data going through the netgraph subsystem.
Can you try to set net.graph.maxdata as well (see my other e-mail).
Does it solve your problem too?
Thanks for your help
Peter
Hi,
My test system is a FreeBSD8.2/AMD64 Stable r222508 in a DELL
R710 with 24GB of RAM with a dual Intel PRO/1000 and 4 Broadcom
Extreme II BCM5709. The broadcoms are lagged together giving bridged
connectivity to the virtual machines to the real world. I'm also
using a vboxnet network to bring a dedicated network between the
virtual machines and the host system.
I've been testing with net.graph.maxdata="65536". I've been able
to do large transfers (like 25GB with rsync and scp) from the host
to a remote system. Also I've been able to do transfers of about
10GB from the host system to one guest system and they went well.
Without setting net.graph.maxdata I usually triggered the problem
with transfers of about 1 or 2GB. As you can see, I saw no problems
with the real network nor with the virtual network.
I did not report earlier because I wanted to be sure enough. Now I
would say that maxdata removed the problem for me.
What I do not get is why it works with CURRENT having
net.graph.maxdata="256".
This is tested on the laptop? Are you able to upgrade the Dell to
-current to confirm? (Or did you do it already?)
Anyway I think it would be nice to know why setting the maxdata
solves the problem because it would allow the virtualbox team to
add a note in pkg-message with the appropriate explanation or even
proposing a PR to STABLE to fix the issue.
Of course 65536 is a very high value. I just used it as a starting
point to test but I planning to decrease it gradually next week.
Are your VirtualBoxes busy "network-wise"?
My one is. It is a Zimbra mail server running on Red Hat Enterprise
Linux (the only inhouse Linux server I could not convert to native
FreeBSD but I did not want it to give an extra server on its own..)
It serves 50 accounts, and gets SMTP traffic (spam) arriving, Outlook
connections using HTTP, a web interface, internal redirections to
spamassassin and amavis etc.
The buffers are limited by default to avoid general kernel memory
shortage I guess. There is some advice related to network tuning (e.g.
http://www.freebsdonline.com/content/view/49/63/ )
But I (and others, as it looks like) did not see the reason why it
failed. You could call it a pilot error if I did not consider the
network load as an issue. In the beginning I saw the scp as an
isolated process and wondered why it failed (the host system isn't
really busy).
It is probably not really a VirtualBox issue at all. It is just
VirtualBox is "the box" that hides all that's going on, it is always
good to remember that the load is still there.
I had issues in the past with VMWare as well. It was difficult for
people to understand "why it's so slow" when grunty boxes were
"subdivided" by developers in many many virtual servers. The combined
load was very hard to grasp, it is difficult to have all relevant data
available when an intermittent problem occurs. We had VMWare
consultants called in by the management who walked away after a day
with "the problem does not exist"...
Regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-emulation-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
