as I wrote in my first comment, my host is a M$ Windows system, on which I prepare the vms to run later on a dedicated Solaris virtualization server. My first thought was it is a kernel problem. However, kernel panic still is reproducible with todays version of 16.04 as guest (all updates included) and VirtualBox 5.0.14 r105127 when using virtio-net and warm boot. My network config is in bridge mode to the physical adapter of the Windows host. Chipset emulation PIIX3, IO-APIC active, no audio, VT-x/AMD-V on, Nested Paging, KVM-paravitualization on, template Ubuntu (64-bit), SATA controller in AHCI mode, hard disk as vmdk file.
I assume your host is Linux... maybe that's the key. Then Ubuntu seems to have no problem, neither as guest nor as host. At least good to know.
Sorry that I cannot provide an ova: This is a copy of my production system with the new LTS version for testing purposes containing a lot of sensible data. But basically the guest is a 16.04 standard server installation without X.
Hope that helps at least a bit.
LocutusOfBorg wrote:
> They told me they tracked it in their internal issue tracker.
Hmm, ...
Hi,
as I wrote in my first comment, my host is a M$ Windows system, on which I prepare the vms to run later on a dedicated Solaris virtualization server. My first thought was it is a kernel problem. However, kernel panic still is reproducible with todays version of 16.04 as guest (all updates included) and VirtualBox 5.0.14 r105127 when using virtio-net and warm boot. My network config is in bridge mode to the physical adapter of the Windows host. Chipset emulation PIIX3, IO-APIC active, no audio, VT-x/AMD-V on, Nested Paging, KVM-paravituali zation on, template Ubuntu (64-bit), SATA controller in AHCI mode, hard disk as vmdk file.
I assume your host is Linux... maybe that's the key. Then Ubuntu seems to have no problem, neither as guest nor as host. At least good to know.
Sorry that I cannot provide an ova: This is a copy of my production system with the new LTS version for testing purposes containing a lot of sensible data. But basically the guest is a 16.04 standard server installation without X.
Hope that helps at least a bit.
LocutusOfBorg wrote:
> They told me they tracked it in their internal issue tracker.
Hmm, ...
Chris