I'm running Vbox 2.2 on a WinXPsp3 host on an Active Directory network. After installing 2.2, my host takes at least 10x more time to boot than before, with most of the time spent on preparing network connections. I assume this has something to do with the host-only networking that is new in Vbox 2.2 (?). I have only one guest (Solaris 10), and I don't think I need the host-only networking. This behavior did not occur with Vbox 2.1.4.
Can someone suggest a way to speed up my host boot? Can I disable the host-only networking? Is this slow booting normal? Would this problem qualify as a bug?
Thank you in advance.
Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
Did you do a reinstall with repair? they have gone back to bridging, this feature might need a few (re)install/boots to get going again. The old bridge used a driver and this bridge might use one as well, what I recall about bridge is that the basic bridge driver can get installed the wrong way, ea. you have to leave the install procedure alone because some components take a short while to complete, should you be doing other things while this process is doing something in the background it can go wrong.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
If you can read this, you can read the VirtualBox Manual, the Forum FAQ, and the QuickClick FAQ
-=[ Search this forum with Keywords, VirtualBox solutions at you're fingertips]=-
If you can read this, you can read the VirtualBox Manual, the Forum FAQ, and the QuickClick FAQ
-=[ Search this forum with Keywords, VirtualBox solutions at you're fingertips]=-
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
I did a repair of the installation, and it prompted me to reboot after it was done. The original install of 2.2 (over 2.1.4) did not prompt me to reboot. Anyway, the host booting was still slow.
Is it normal to see a new network icon in the alert area of your desktop (lower right) for the Host-only Network (Vbox Bridged Networking), with no connectivity?
Is it normal to see a new network icon in the alert area of your desktop (lower right) for the Host-only Network (Vbox Bridged Networking), with no connectivity?
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
I should have posted this in the Windows hosts forum. There are many, many posts in there, and logged bugs, about the 2.2 Windows host networking problem. New install/repair does not fix the problem, it is a bug in 2.2, and evidently a fix has been found and a maintenance release will be available soon.
None of the posts and bugs mention really slow XP host booting. I hope the fix solves that problem, too.
None of the posts and bugs mention really slow XP host booting. I hope the fix solves that problem, too.
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
I had upgraded from 2.1.4 to 2.2. I removed 2.2 and rebooted. I tried to re-install 2.2 with usb and networking packages, but got an error saying to try again later. I tried again, this time not installing the Vbox networking package. This worked fine, the useless Vbox host-only connection icon is removed from tray, guest connects to net fine with NAT, and my host boots normally.
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
This is a known issue. Please see http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/3722 for detail and a workaround
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
Thank you for the heads-up, misha. I added info and a question on that bug page. What do you recommend as the optimal way to disable the host-only network adapter? I removed 2.2 and re-installed without the Vbox networking package.
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
Please see my reply in bugtracker: http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/3722#comment:4rasta wrote:Thank you for the heads-up, misha. I added info and a question on that bug page. What do you recommend as the optimal way to disable the host-only network adapter? I removed 2.2 and re-installed without the Vbox networking package.
Re: Vbox 2.2 - Very slow WinXP host boot - networking
Thanks, misha. I posted another question for you on the bug page. I appreciate your help.