[Ubuntu in Windows10] A critical error has occured while running the virutal machine

[ihatewindows10lol]

I searched for some answers here, and tried a few things and no luck.
I've had this VM for months, no idea why it's not working now.

Here are my logs:
pastebin (dot) com/etC90N4j

File was too big to attach.

[BillG]

Not many people here will look at third party sites. If you log file is too big, zip it first.

[Pol77241q]

I searched for some answers here, and tried a few things and no luck.
I've had this VM for months, no idea why it's not working now.

Hello! I'm using host Windows 7 with guest: Ubuntu 16.04.
I updated Ubuntu 16.04 with "sudo apt update" and "sudo apt upgrade".
Rebooted Ubuntu and can't start Ubuntu(((
Virtualbox say: "You have critical error".

2all: I attached my logs.

I assume that in this update Ubuntu was a fix for Meltdown.
I have an old processor: "Intel Core2Duo E8400" and fix for Meltdown(from Microsoft) can't install on my Windows 7.
Queue mistakes reached Ubuntu and Virtualbox.

I am so sorry, for my strange English. I using Google Translate)))

[socratis]

"You have critical error"

Please update your VirtualBox installation to the latest test build: ≥120181 (5.2.x) or ≥120178 (5.1.x).

Moving to "Linux Guests" from "Windows Hosts".

[Pol77241q]

Please update your VirtualBox installation to 120181 (5.2.x) or ≥120178 (5.1.x).

I installed Virtual Box version 5.1.31 r ≥120178 and Ubuntu earned!
Another problem now: everything works very slowly (((

[mpack]

Perhaps not overcommitting resources would help on the speed issue. You have a dual core host. If you assign both cores to the VM then it leaves nothing for the host alone to use, therefore the two will compete for CPU time (each will impact the other).

Also, I see that your VDIs are located on drive I: and drive H: of the host. What are these drives? If either one is external (or even worse - external and USB2) then you can probably expect poor performance.

I don't like how much RAM you've given to this guest. Frankly, your host can't afford to give 2GB+128MB RAM to a VM. I'd probably cut both RAM and graphics RAM numbers in half.

In a non-performance issue, you have the VM files scattered over three drives. I see this as an accident waiting to happen. If you don't want the VM on the C drive then you should move the entire VM to another drive, not bits of it.

[Pol77241q]

Also, I see that your VDIs are located on drive I: and drive H: of the host. What are these drives? If either one is external (or even worse - external and USB2) then you can probably expect poor performance.

Drive C: - SSD drive - only for windows 7.
Drive H: - other phisical drive
Drive I: - Another one phisical drive
They are all internal, there are no external ones at all.

I don't like how much RAM you've given to this guest. Frankly, your host can't afford to give 2GB+128B RAM to a VM. I'd probably cut both RAM and graphics RAM numbers in half.

I have 4GB RAM.
I think that I can give half the memory to the guest system.

In a non-performance issue, you have the VM files scattered over three drives. I see this as an accident waiting to happen. If you don't want the VM on the C drive then you should move the entire VM to another drive, not bits of it.

I using usualy drive I: for VM files.)

[mpack]

I have 4GB RAM.
I think that I can give half the memory to the guest system.

The rule of thumb is around half of AVAILABLE memory to the VM. 4GB is your total RAM, not your available RAM. You can't use all your hosts RAM for something else, and totally ignore that when deciding how much you can still afford to give the VM.

You can find your available RAM near the top of the log you provided.

[Pol77241q]

The rule of thumb is give around half of AVAILABLE memory to the VM. 4GB is your total RAM, not your available RAM.

I know about the available memory. ) I want to know from you - do you know about the swap file?
Thank you so much. You have selected the color so that I understand you better.
I've been using Virtualbox for many years on this PC.
And everything is fine until yesterday's critical error!

[Perryg]

If anything is going to the swap file that is why everything is slow. Swap files are not ram disks. That is where the OS moves portions of running programs that are not being actively used to disk. Its like driving with your foot on the brake.

Why not post a new log file since you have upgraded.

[Pol77241q]

Its like driving with your foot on the brake.

But swap file on SSD drive)
Thank you for helping me solve the problem)

Why not post a new log file since you have upgraded.

OK.

P.S. I discovered a new crazy problems (
I tried to watch the video from the site youtube in different browsers -> It was terrible(
Video and sound are played very fast. Approximately 7 seconds of video in 1 real second.
I downloaded the video from the Internet to the computer and tried to play it.
The problem persisted. It's not about browsers.
Next, I downloaded the MP3 file and also reproduced it - the sound is still a cacophony.
It's not only in Ubuntu, cacophony is reproduced in Rosa-Linux

[Perryg]

Swap is swap no matter where it is located. It is not RAM. Anything that uses swap will be slow period.

Now to your issue:

Code: Select all

00:00:01.206405 Host RAM: 4095MB (3.9GB) total, 2809MB (2.7GB) available
00:00:02.078484   RamSize           <integer> = 0x0000000080000000 (2 147 483 648, 2 048 MB)
00:00:02.078905   VRamSize         <integer> = 0x0000000008000000 (134 217 728, 128 MB)

Code: Select all

00:00:02.078460   NumCPUs           <integer> = 0x0000000000000002 (2)
00:00:02.572102 CPUM: Logical host processors: 2 present, 2 max, 2 online, online mask: 0000000000000003
00:00:02.572103 CPUM: Physical host cores: 2

Video is just about the most cpu intensive thing that you can run in a guest, except for compiling. If you look above your host is maxed out and the guest is starved.
Also keep in mind that your processor came out 10 years ago and is a core2 duo, not something that by today’s standards is considered very fast especially when you consider that you are in a sense running 2 computers in one.

[mpack]

Also keep in mind that your processor came out 10 years ago and is a core2 duo, not something that by today’s standards is considered very fast

I seem to recall Michaln commenting in the past that the main thing these older Intel CPUs lack is "extended page tables" (EPT) sipport aka nested paging. I.e. a mechanism to translate between guest and host RAM address ranges. With older Intel CPUs this has to be done in software, hence it''s slower.

[Pol77241q]

Video is just about the most cpu intensive thing ...
...processor came out 10 years ago and is a core2 duo...

Dear Mentor, I would agree with you if 2 days ago everything was fine and wonderful!
You want to say that after installing VirtualBox 5.1.31 r 120178 - I can no longer use the VM as before? And the only way to solve the problem is to buy a new computer?

[mpack]

Dear Mentor, I would agree with you if 2 days ago everything was fine and wonderful!

Then clearly something changed, only you can be sure what that is. Perhaps a host update now means that less RAM is available to the guest. Or perhaps your antivirus has been updated.

The "something" can't be VirtualBox since it is unchanged - you're still running 5.1.30.