Ticket #14217 (new enhancement)

Opened 4 years ago

Last modified 3 months ago

Support hypervisor.framework under OS X

Reported by: Alex_ Owned by:
Component: host support Version: VirtualBox 4.3.28
Keywords: Cc:
Guest type: other Host type: Mac OS X


Instead of the VirtualBox hypervisor use the native OS X Hypervisor.framework ( see ). It's available since version 10.10 (Yosemite), provides a thin user mode abstraction of the Intel VT features, enables apps to use virtualization without the need of a kernel extension (KEXT), which finally could make them compatible with the OS X App Store guidelines. Performance has to be evaluated, though.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by klaus

Who would benefit from the presence of VirtualBox in the App Store? Just curious...

Regarding the performance I'm very pessimistic. The abstraction rules out many optimizations which VirtualBox has for a long time. It'd be a step back for the users, and need a lot of effort to reach the functionality which is already reality today.

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by Tao Wang

I would like to see Virtualbox support hypervisor.framework in OSX, especially when using it with Docker and have share folder with the host. I like the current Docker for Mac implementation, Hyperkit, which based on xhype, which is based on bhype from FreeBSD. It's not only about Docker, so I would like to see the hypervisor framework to be supported in VirtualBox.

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by kenkyee

It's for coexistence...Docker is becoming more common for backends and for developer setups, running a dev server locally helps a lot. Virtualbox is also used by Genymotion so if you're using Docker, you can't use Genymotion for Android development :-(

I'd except slightly slower (10-20% slower) speed for coexistence mode...

comment:4 Changed 19 months ago by BrendanSimon

On my new macbook (Pro with touchbard and masOS Sierra), VirtualBox seems painfully slow with some applications compared to the past.

I got so frustrated I went to VMWare on a trial and it was good. Didn't buy it, but still might have to. Didn't try Parallels.

I did try Veertu Desktop which is built on top of Apple's hypervisor.framework and it feels blindingly fast. I was sold on it, but alas a few networking bugs means I couldn't use it the way I wanted.

So why does Verrtu feel blindingly fast compared to VirtualBox, yet some comments here are suggesting that using the hypvervisor.framework would cause a drop in performance ???

comment:5 Changed 3 months ago by Jack Sellwood

I think the primary reason to support hypervisor.framework isn't for App Store support (EW), but for performance/stability improvements of not running running another KEXT.

comment:6 Changed 3 months ago by socratis

@Jack Sellwood

Be careful what you wish for! If you think that the Hypervisor.framework is at the same level of optimization that VirtualBox is, you might be in for a treat!!! :)

Just look at what happened when VirtualBox was forced to use the  Hyper-V framework in Windows. A slow-as-molasses virtualization, not even close to the native VirtualBox performance.

VirtualBox has had years of experience on this. The rest of the bunch (Windows Hyper-V, OSX Hypervisor.framework, Linux KVM) not so much...

comment:7 Changed 3 months ago by Jack Sellwood

Interesting! Thx for the info :)

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
ContactPrivacy policyTerms of Use