Project

General

Profile

Feature #23926

VirtualBox kernel modules missing in FreeNAS 11

Added by Przemyslaw Dobrowolski over 3 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Nice to have
Assignee:
Marcelo Araujo
Category:
Middleware
Target version:
Estimated time:
Severity:
New
Reason for Closing:
Reason for Blocked:
Needs QA:
Yes
Needs Doc:
Yes
Needs Merging:
Yes
Needs Automation:
No
Support Suite Ticket:
n/a
Hardware Configuration:

Description

I have VirtualBox 5.1.6 in a Jail in 9.10 system. It works perfectly. I only change the version of vbox when the kernel modules are changed on FreeNAS upgrade.

I wanted to move to byhve I even migrated my virtual machines to byhve, but after some time. It turned out that (IMHO) vbox works much better and has more functionality than byhve so I tried to rollback to VirtualBox. Unfortunatelly with 11: vboxdrv.ko, vboxnetadp.ko and vboxnetflt.ko are missing.

I understand that you prefer byhve but this is not a problem to add standard kernel modules into distribution and give users the choice.

Associated revisions

Revision be83e0b0 (diff)
Added by Marcelo Araujo over 3 years ago

feat(virtualbox): Bring back the virtualbox modules. It is well now that Virtualbox cannot coexist with bhyve, users can't use both at the same time. Ticket: #23926 This reverts commit a83e3df55f2eb2d649d172c27875da6463eb6f09.

Revision f3ba88f5 (diff)
Added by Marcelo Araujo over 3 years ago

feat(virtualbox): Bring back the virtualbox modules. It is well now that Virtualbox cannot coexist with bhyve, users can't use both at the same time. Ticket: #23926 This reverts commit a83e3df55f2eb2d649d172c27875da6463eb6f09.

History

#1 Updated by Sean Fagan over 3 years ago

  • Category changed from 123 to 38
  • Assignee changed from Sean Fagan to Kris Moore

#2 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore over 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Kris Moore to Marcelo Araujo
  • Target version changed from 11.0-RC to 11.1

I'm not sure how "safe" this is to do. Those modules do conflicts with vmm / bhyve and would be a pain for the end-user to switch to.

Marcelo, thoughts?

#3 Updated by Cyber Jock over 3 years ago

Just going to add my few cents to this as I was mostly responsible for generating the first virtualbox jail template.

We have quite a few FreeNAS Certified users using the virtualbox jail. If there is a conflict, I think the intelligent way to handle this would be to continue to support virtualbox until bhyve is 100% up and working, and only then announce the removal of virtualbox and new support for bhyve.

#4 Updated by Przemyslaw Dobrowolski over 3 years ago

Kris Moore wrote:

I'm not sure how "safe" this is to do. Those modules do conflicts with vmm / bhyve and would be a pain for the end-user to switch to.

I'm a little bit confused, because these two Hypervisors have been cooexisting eachothers on 9.10. Thanks to this I made first tests of bhyve. When I shwitch off Vbox I'm able to start bhyve. That is why I asked to add these modules.

#5 Updated by Marcelo Araujo over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Unscreened to Screened

#6 Updated by Kim Kam over 3 years ago

Cannot this go to 11.0? It's just inclusion of vboxdrv kernel modules, similary as were present in 9.10 version. There are still problems with bhyve for general use, not finished UI, problem to boot vms. Virtualbox is only alternative to run full VMs till bhyve is stable. And even then, people can decide what to use.
I'm talking only about kernel drivers inclusion (virtualbox-ose-kmod). New virtualbox jail we can create ourself.

#7 Updated by Przemyslaw Dobrowolski over 3 years ago

Exactly! You have written the point I wanted to say.

I always create/update my jail due to FreeNAS update. I exactly know what version I should install inside the jail. Unfortunately the last k modules included to FreeNAS 9.10 were 5.1.6 (It could be a trick were to find such an old version of vbox :) But I can manage.).

#8 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore over 3 years ago

Marcelo, can we re-enable building the kmod for 11.0? It will be 100% unsupported by us, but at least then we've given these folks a fighting chance to use it ;)

#9 Updated by Marcelo Araujo over 3 years ago

Kim Kam wrote:

Cannot this go to 11.0? It's just inclusion of vboxdrv kernel modules, similary as were present in 9.10 version. There are still problems with bhyve for general use, not finished UI, problem to boot vms. Virtualbox is only alternative to run full VMs till bhyve is stable. And even then, people can decide what to use.
I'm talking only about kernel drivers inclusion (virtualbox-ose-kmod). New virtualbox jail we can create ourself.

Hi, I'm wondering what issues are you having with bhyve as well as with the UI. I basically can run almost everything with bhyve, there are bugs that everybody knows of course, but I'm instigated to know what you do with Virtualbox that you can't do with bhyve.

Best,

#10 Updated by Marcelo Araujo over 3 years ago

Kris Moore wrote:

Marcelo, can we re-enable building the kmod for 11.0? It will be 100% unsupported by us, but at least then we've given these folks a fighting chance to use it ;)

Yes and No, I would need to modify the Virtualbox modules. So, the main problem is, and it happens in any platform with any hypervisor, usually two Hypervisors can't co-exist in the same host, they would requires cooperation between them to avoid any state collision. Another example recently KVM removed the support they had for co-existence with other Hypervisors, just because it didn't work. Another example, HyperV and VMWare Workstation on Windows can't co-exist and the list goes on.

On FreeBSD we are in a better shape because we can rework bhyve code and virtualbox module code, however to make it work I would need to create a register in kernel where I would indicate if I'm willing to run in shared mode or only exclusive mode, that might allow both bhyve and virtualbox co-exist, but probably I would need to make modifications on bhyve and virtualbox too.

Another option would be, make a switch button on UI that users can choose to use VirtualBox or Bhyve, but IMHO I still would like to know the issues that stuck users on VirtualBox and don't allow them to move to bhyve.

A third option, users can install it manually and run it on their own.

To make my answer shorter: No, right now we can't run both together.

#11 Updated by Kim Kam over 3 years ago

Nobody wants to run both hypervisors at the same time. Of course. Just one.

In current 9.10.2-U3 they are also present both. Or no?
And virtualbox 5.1.6 can be running without problems, when we have no bhyve machines loaded or created.

So what problem will it be, if unmodified ose-kmod drivers will be present? And by default not loaded? And who wants to use it, will add system tunables like vboxdrv_load="YES" and create own virtualbox jail? For rest, they will not be even loaded, so it will work like not present.

You mention third option - install by theit own. But installing virtualbox-ose-kmod under jail is not sufficient, it needs to be present in freenas host, to which we can't install anything by ourself.

If you ask what I'm missing with bhyve - look on UI for bhyve and UI for virtualbox. virtualbox have still many times more features there.

I'm really dissapointed, that again you are taking one feature from freenas (virtualbox), while the integration of other one (bhyve) is not yet finished.

#12 Updated by Marcelo Araujo over 3 years ago

Kim Kam wrote:

Nobody wants to run both hypervisors at the same time. Of course. Just one.

In current 9.10.2-U3 they are also present both. Or no?
And virtualbox 5.1.6 can be running without problems, when we have no bhyve machines loaded or created.

So what problem will it be, if unmodified ose-kmod drivers will be present? And by default not loaded? And who wants to use it, will add system tunables like vboxdrv_load="YES" and create own virtualbox jail? For rest, they will not be even loaded, so it will work like not present.

If both modules are present and not loaded at the same time, there is no problem. Even though, if both are loaded they might not present any issue if there is no VM running.

You mention third option - install by theit own. But installing virtualbox-ose-kmod under jail is not sufficient, it needs to be present in freenas host, to which we can't install anything by ourself.

Yes, I know about that, that option is something that need to be thought carefully.

If you ask what I'm missing with bhyve - look on UI for bhyve and UI for virtualbox. virtualbox have still many times more features there.

IMHO, that is hard to compare, VirtualBox has a long way in the market comparing with bhyve, and frankly speaking, I can't see bhyve and the UI get close in a short time with what VirtualBox provides.

I'm really dissapointed, that again you are taking one feature from freenas (virtualbox), while the integration of other one (bhyve) is not yet finished.

I apologize about it, I need couple days to think how we can provide a solution for it.

#13 Updated by Marcelo Araujo over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Screened to Needs Developer Review
  • Assignee changed from Marcelo Araujo to Kris Moore

#14 Avatar?id=14398&size=24x24 Updated by Kris Moore over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Needs Developer Review to Reviewed
  • Assignee changed from Kris Moore to Marcelo Araujo

LGTM!

#15 Updated by Vaibhav Chauhan over 3 years ago

  • Target version changed from 11.1 to 11.0

Merge all reviewed things.

#16 Updated by Vaibhav Chauhan over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Reviewed to Merged

#17 Updated by Vaibhav Chauhan over 3 years ago

  • Target version changed from 11.0 to 11.0-RC3

#18 Updated by Vaibhav Chauhan over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Merged to Resolved

Also available in: Atom PDF