VirtualBox

Opened 9 years ago

Closed 20 months ago

Last modified 17 months ago

#14217 closed enhancement (fixed)

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

Description

Instead of the VirtualBox hypervisor use the native OS X Hypervisor.framework ( see https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_10.html ). 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 (11)

comment:1 by Klaus Espenlaub, 9 years ago

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 by Tao Wang, 8 years ago

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 by kenkyee, 8 years ago

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 by BrendanSimon, 7 years ago

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 by Jack Sellwood, 5 years ago

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 by Socratis, 5 years ago

@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 by Jack Sellwood, 5 years ago

Interesting! Thx for the info :)

comment:8 by Martin Häcker, 4 years ago

Just another drop fo salt in this wound: Hypervisor.framework support would mean not requiring kernel extensions, thus allowing a) distribution though the App Store (which would make it _much_ easier for a lot of users to discover VirtualBox, as well as get updates. BUT it would also be much more compatible with MacOS Big Sur (and the following versions) which gradually make it harder and harder for applications to have Kernel extensions.

I am not entirely sure yet, but from what I've heard from the WWDC sessions) ARM support (M1 Apple Silicon) might even require not having Kernel Extensions and going through Hypervisor.framework.

Might therefore be related to: #19795

comment:9 by aeichner, 20 months ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

With 7.0 VirtualBox relies entirely on Hypervisor.framework now, closing this as fixed. Performance is not as good as with our own hypervisor though.

comment:10 by Martin Häcker, 20 months ago

In Honor of this fundamental News: (party-popper-emoi)(explosion-emoji)(snail-emoji)(bottle-with-explosive-cork-emoji)(dancing-man-emoji) [Sorry, but everything after the first emoji seems to get stripped on submit]

Last edited 20 months ago by Martin Häcker (previous) (diff)

comment:11 by FrankR, 17 months ago

Using VirtualBox VM 7.0.6 r155176 darwin.amd64 (Jan 11 2023 17:40:04) on an MacPro (Intel) running Mac OS Monterey 12.6.2 (21G320) with a Windows10 VM with 4 CPU and 16GB memory assigned and a SATA SSD configured for raw disk access.

How do I configure to get the Win10 guest out of "turtle" mode??? Slow enough to be completely unusable.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.

© 2023 Oracle
ContactPrivacy policyTerms of Use