virtualbox.org

Host: Windows XP Pro
Client: Red Hat Linux 9

I am impressed:

• VB is soo much quicker than VPC2K7. An install of RHL9 on VPC takes about 15 minutes. VB2.2.0 took less than 10.
• VB doesn't give the i8523 error that VPC2K7 does when I am running in textmode.

However all that means diddly-squat if I can't access the VM from the host machine!

I am running RHL9 as a test server to replicate the environment of the physical thing. VPC is unusable due to the i8532 error in textmode, and feels sluggish running with a graphical interface.

So I am trying out VB. What I can't figure out is how to allow anything to access the machine. This is where VPC excels: It just worked.

I use 192.168.1.5 for the client PC. I have DHCP turned off. I have the hostname set to testserver. I have firewall turned off.

Can't ping 192.168.1.1 from the Host, can't access the page I am trying to host, I can't see it in network neighbourhood. This is with NAT, which being the first option you would assume would suit most people.

The rest gave no different results. I tried bridged but that didn't do anything but prevent me from accessing the outside world as well as the server.

Now, can anyone give me a definite way of being able to access my VB vm or should I give up now and just use VPC? I've wasted enough hours already - when you can buy a car with an engine, why buy a faster car where you have to assemble the engine yourself? I would like to use VB because it feels faster, but I am not going to waste another afternoon trying.

Some other items which really annoys me about VirtualBox:

• Repeatedly installing a test machine like I do when I complete spam things up is a nightmare in VB. First you delete the vdi. That won't let you install, you have to delete the information in appdata. Will that allow you to install? No, there's information in an xml file too. So you end up deleting the .VirtualBox directory and having to okay all the annoying questions again.
• When placing the hard drive image, it defaults to the .VirtualBox directory in appdata. I prefer it to be on a separate physical drive to my OS. Unfortunately the browse function doesn't work: I click the My Computer button down the left hand side and nothing appears in the explorer box. I have to physically navigate to the drive I want via the combobox before I get to see folders.
• Does it matter what network card is used? If the exact card is important, why not all of them instead of a generic one. Why just 5?

When using nat you really should leave your guest on dhcp.
By default it will then use 10.0.2.15

To reach it you will have to setup port forwarding, search for that on the forum and in the manual.

Next net type is bridged this is if you want it to be directly reachable from the outside.

My preference is to setup two network cards first as nat, second as "host only" leave both on dhcp.
The host only interface will let your host and guests communicate directly with each other on something like 192.168.56.xxx , the nat interface will be used for outgoing connections and possibly to let selected things in via port forwarding.

The reason for several types of network cards is like this
XP has no support for newer intel cards oob (out of the box)
Vista no support for the older pcnet cards oob.
and so on.

baf wrote:When using nat you really should leave your guest on dhcp.
By default it will then use 10.0.2.15

I don't see why that would help.

baf wrote:To reach it you will have to setup port forwarding, search for that on the forum and in the manual.

Again, not something I had to do with VPC. I only plan on accessing it from the Host machine.

baf wrote:Next net type is bridged this is if you want it to be directly reachable from the outside.

Not something I had planned - this is only a test server for private use.

baf wrote:My preference is to setup two network cards first as nat, second as "host only" leave both on dhcp.
The host only interface will let your host and guests communicate directly with each other on something like 192.168.56.xxx , the nat interface will be used for outgoing connections and possibly to let selected things in via port forwarding.

Is this on the host or the client? I can't really use DHCP on the lan as that would play havoc with other software that isn't nat friendly for which I have already set up port forwarding on the router. You really need to go into a little more detail on this point.

On my network I have

• 192.168.1.1 - Wireless router
• 192.168.1.2 - HTPC
• 192.168.1.3 - DevBoxOne
• 192.168.1.4 - Wife's laptop
• 192.168.1.5+ - VM's

Thanks, G.

Now, can anyone give me a definite way of being able to access my VB vm or should I give up now and just use VPC? I've wasted enough hours already - when you can buy a car with an engine, why buy a faster car where you have to assemble the engine yourself? I would like to use VB because it feels faster, but I am not going to waste another afternoon trying.

As with everything in life some things are not meant to be. If you are satisfied with the performance of VPC then stay with VPC.
If however you want to increase the power of your virtualizer then VB is the route to go. It is more robust and has a lot of features that you can not get with VPC. That is why it is not what I would call plug-and-play. To be able to have this robust environment you have to learn how to use the product. There are several links on this forum and there is a users guide that comes installed with your copy of VirtualBox that will answer your questions that you presented here. Have you read it?

If you do it like this (These are settings in VB):

My preference is to setup two network cards first as nat, second as "host only" leave both on dhcp(in the guest).
The host only interface will let your host and guests communicate directly with each other on something like 192.168.56.xxx , the nat interface will be used for outgoing connections and possibly to let selected things in via port forwarding.

The dhcp will only be internal and not touch your external net.
your host will get one extra network card on 192.168.56.X
so you will reach your guest on something like 192.168.56.4
And the guest can reach internet via the nat interface 10.0.2.15
So try it and set both network cards in the guest to nat and see what you think.