# VirtualBox Linux Host & Guests **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/virtualbox-linux-host-guests/225779 "2013-01-29T18:00:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SSkonishi\_takurou\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SSkonishi\_takurou\_S](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/SSkonishi_takurou_S)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/virtualbox-linux-host-guests/225779/1 "2013-01-29T18:00:30Z")
Not directly on topic - but since I think there are people here who use VirtualBox with Nginx I’ll ask. At first I thought I had nginx configuration problems - but even if I do, I know my core issue is VirtualBox/Linux networking. I have a Linux host (AMD Opteron, 6-core, 16GB) with multiple VirtualBox VM’s. After tests and experiments, I’m now using the Intel T Server network interface for the guests (I WAS using the virtio - but performance was horrible). The guests are bridged. I’m using Ubuntu “Precise” for both host & guests and “Guest Extensions” is installed on all guests. My first question - is anyone using the virtio interface successfully? And measured your performance to know it’s working? But the real question - what if any adjustments have you made, either to VirtualBox or to Linux, to achieve optimum network performance? Having switched to the Intel interface my Linux guests have gotten much better - but still not where I think they should be (which to me means the virtualization should be transparent - guests should have the same speed as the host). I have Windows guests that are working perfectly - it’s only the Linux guests that have issues. – Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Daniel_LSMiller)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/virtualbox-linux-host-guests/225779/2 "2013-01-29T20:22:05Z")
Stick to ‘Intel PRO/1000 MT Server (82545EM)’ for every guest that can use it, even debian/nginx (6.0.6) blasts with it, I was using virtio for some time which does do what it suppose to do, lower cpu use and less virtualization overhead, but the performance s\*cks. Posted at Nginx Forum: > **[Re: VirtualBox Linux Host & Guests](https://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,235687,235702#msg-235702)** > > Not directly on topic - but since I think there are people here who use VirtualBox with Nginx I'll ask. At first I thought I had nginx configuration problems - but even if I do, I know my core issue is VirtualBox/Linux networking. I have a Linux host... ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Daniel_LSMiller)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/virtualbox-linux-host-guests/225779/3 "2013-01-29T20:29:41Z")
On 1/29/2013 11:21 AM, itpp2012 wrote: > Stick to ‘Intel PRO/1000 MT Server (82545EM)’ for every guest that can use > it, even debian/nginx (6.0.6) blasts with it, I was using virtio for some > time which does do what it suppose to do, lower cpu use and less > virtualization overhead, but the performance s\*cks. Regarding the virtio - that’s exactly what I found. Is there a reason to use the ‘MT’ vs the ‘T’ if I only need one interface? – Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Daniel_LSMiller)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/virtualbox-linux-host-guests/225779/4 "2013-01-30T01:13:10Z")
On 1/29/2013 1:47 PM, itpp2012 wrote: > ## Daniel L. Miller Wrote: > > > Is there a reason to use the ‘MT’ vs the ‘T’ if I only need one > > interface? > > Other then better performance and a wider range of support by default, no. > > You’re not going to see 2 nics anyway, the MT has a few more tuning options > > then the T, I’ve done some extensive testing with all of them and their > > several drivers with the MT having better use of the bandwidth and best > > throughput (near realtime) even on a cluster with 120 vm’s. And here I thought I was being clever by using the single-NIC model. Let’s see how it works… Hmm…don’t really see any difference but I’ll take your word for it and leave it set with the MT. But I’m still left with wondering why my Linux guest (now using the MT) is slower than the Windows guest (still using T). It’s acceptable speed…just not full throttle and it leaves me wanting more. Are there any tweaks you’ve done to either the host or guest? – Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Daniel_LSMiller)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 12:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/virtualbox-linux-host-guests/225779/5 "2013-01-30T12:05:12Z")
It also depends on what the Host has as a nic and how its settings are set, ea. QoS and LLTP are useless protocols but take resources away, force VM’s to use 1gb FD, another thing is to stick to VBox 3.2, force the GA to use timesync only. Ea. use IPerf to push settings and boundaries. Posted at Nginx Forum: > **[Re: VirtualBox Linux Host & Guests](https://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,235687,235728#msg-235728)** > > Not directly on topic - but since I think there are people here who use VirtualBox with Nginx I'll ask. At first I thought I had nginx configuration problems - but even if I do, I know my core issue is VirtualBox/Linux networking. I have a Linux host... ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Daniel\_LSMiller](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Daniel_LSMiller)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/virtualbox-linux-host-guests/225779/6 "2013-01-29T22:48:14Z")
## Daniel L. Miller Wrote: > Is there a reason to use the ‘MT’ vs the ‘T’ if I only need one > interface? Other then better performance and a wider range of support by default, no. You’re not going to see 2 nics anyway, the MT has a few more tuning options then the T, I’ve done some extensive testing with all of them and their several drivers with the MT having better use of the bandwidth and best throughput (near realtime) even on a cluster with 120 vm’s. Posted at Nginx Forum: [http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,235687,235708#msg-235708](http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,235687,235708#msg-235708)