Seems quite unstable... the system appears to "freeze" at random parts of the day/night. When it occurs, the following happens:
Any "clock" gui on the desktop is still visible, but stops ticking.
spawned xterms fail to show a shell prompt
firefox completely fails to respond
I can still switch active windows (by clicking on them, or using alt-tab), and even switch desktops.
using a portforward to sshd from host machine, sshd responds but fails to show a shell prompt
attempting to switch to console fails (screen doesn't switchover at all).
Strangely enough... If I'm using vncviewer or rdesktop to another machine, I can still use everything within that window.
Eventually... all windows fail to respond and I have to "reset" the guest.
The VBox.log fails to show anything of use... and the Guest log messages show nothing special during the incident.
Using the same VB host install.. I can cleanly run Fedora 11 guest. So I wonder if this is an instability with the Version of XOrg installed.. or even the kernel.
Anyone else notice this?
BTW... the Fedora 14 Guest at the link above has "it" as the set language. This'll goof you up if you're not expecting it.. and attempt to use the console to login (and your password has non-alphanumeric characters).
AFAIK they are not the same as virtualbox.org - so you may ask @ virtualboxes.org whats up
OTOH i guess its way more easy to install fedora by yourself ...
Not sure what you're trying to say here... Are you saying virtualbox.org makes their own Guest Images and that they aren't the same as the ones at vitualboxes.org?
Sure... I could install Fedora 14 myself... but that would defeat the purpose of virtualboxes.org. And it seems a bit overkill to re-install the OS if there might just be a problem with something in XOrg, or a kernel commandline option that needs to be re-enabled.
WBryan wrote:Are you saying virtualbox.org makes their own Guest Images and that they aren't the same as the ones at vitualboxes.org?
virtualbox.org doesn't make guest images and is not in charge for images made by others
WBryan wrote:Sure... I could install Fedora 14 myself... but that would defeat the purpose of virtualboxes.org. And it seems a bit overkill to re-install the OS if there might just be a problem with something in XOrg, or a kernel commandline option that needs to be re-enabled.
WBryan wrote:Are you saying virtualbox.org makes their own Guest Images and that they aren't the same as the ones at vitualboxes.org?
virtualbox.org doesn't make guest images and is not in charge for images made by others
WBryan wrote:Sure... I could install Fedora 14 myself... but that would defeat the purpose of virtualboxes.org. And it seems a bit overkill to re-install the OS if there might just be a problem with something in XOrg, or a kernel commandline option that needs to be re-enabled.
i don't care about, but feel free to contact them
I appreciate your reply... but I was less worried about my image, and more worried about Fedora 14 running with the latest VirtualBox 3.2.X. This being a forum, I thought other users of Fedora 14 would chime in and say "Hey.. yeah I noticed the same thing.." or "Nope... it runs fine with me".
So... I gather from your response, that you're questioning the stability of the image itself?
I don't know about stability issues with Fedora 14 in general since I have not seen any on mine. I do know that it is still new and they are updating almost daily to take care of issues that were not fixed before release time. That being said the place you got your image from may have not configured it properly for your install situation. Normally you install and the built in installer reads the information and sets it according to your needs. Since the image maintainer more than likely does not have your exact PC it stands to reason that would be an issue. You can of course use any image you want but the only place that would be able to address your problems is the maintainer (person/s that created the image).
On a personal note I would never use an image that was pre-built. Who knows what might have been placed in it. Key loggers, Etc.. But here again that is your decision.
I don't know about stability issues with Fedora 14 in general since I have not seen any on mine. I do know that it is still new and they are updating almost daily to take care of issues that were not fixed before release time. That being said the place you got your image from may have not configured it properly for your install situation. Normally you install and the built in installer reads the information and sets it according to your needs. Since the image maintainer more than likely does not have your exact PC it stands to reason that would be an issue. You can of course use any image you want but the only place that would be able to address your problems is the maintainer (person/s that created the image).
On a personal note I would never use an image that was pre-built. Who knows what might have been placed in it. Key loggers, Etc.. But here again that is your decision.
Thank you for your useful comments. I hadn't considered the configuration by the built-in installer... are some of these completely separate than those options you can tweak by hand in the host GUI?
The keylogger bit is something I had not considered.. gah. Reconsidering.. thanks for that.
The GUI sets up the hardware only. Kind of like you installing the hardware by yourself in a PC.
The actual processes the guest uses is almost always setup on install. I am not saying that you can not change them but to find and correct installation errors can be a insurmountable challenge and the actual installation of the OS yourself is by far a lot easier. IMHO.
I have multiple cores assigned so if it were a real BUG I would think I would be having a problem as well. Switching to a single core could be due to having the wrong kernel or numerous other reasons that should be corrected if installed instead of using an image. But in the end it is up to you to decide how you want to use your computer. At this point I feel we have hashed out just about everything that we can unless you need other input from me I will leave you to your endeavors.
Perryg wrote:I have multiple cores assigned so if it were a real BUG I would think I would be having a problem as well. Switching to a single core could be due to having the wrong kernel or numerous other reasons that should be corrected if installed instead of using an image. But in the end it is up to you to decide how you want to use your computer. At this point I feel we have hashed out just about everything that we can unless you need other input from me I will leave you to your endeavors.
I apologize... I failed to reveal in the previous post that I had, in fact, re-installed Fedora 14 from CD (XFCE spin) and performed all package updates. After this, I decided to try using more cores.
Did you have the cores active when you installed? Or did you add them after the fact?
I always install with what it is I intend to use. Probably why I don't see the issues other do.
The way I see it changing things after the install is exactly the same as what would happen if you changed something on metal. While it may be possible to go down in processor count easily, going up is just a problem waiting to happen.
Perryg wrote:Did you have the cores active when you installed? Or did you add them after the fact?
I always install with what it is I intend to use. Probably why I don't see the issues other do.
The way I see it changing things after the install is exactly the same as what would happen if you changed something on metal. While it may be possible to go down in processor count easily, going up is just a problem waiting to happen.
Visualize this as if it were a real computer.
I think this brings us back to my original question. I wondered if there are stability problems with either the versions of Xorg or Linux kernel supplied with Fedora 14... when running as Virtual Machine with VB.
With Fedora 11, I experienced no problem installing with 1 core active... then switching to 8 cores. There's a large number of other packages that have changed, as well... but the symptoms (I think, anyway), point to kernel or display driver problem.
