Windows | Technology Tales

VirtualBox memory allocation error: Solving Linux Mint host issues after LLM usage

22^nd March 2025

It happened to me today when I tried starting up Windows virtual machines in VirtualBox on my main Linux Mint workstation as a host after a long layover for these. They failed to start, only for these messages to appear:

Out of memory condition when allocating memory with low physical backing. (VERR_NO_LOW_MEMORY).

Result Code: NS_ERROR_FAILURE (0x80004005) Component: ConsoleWrap Interface: IConsole {6ac83d89-6ee7-4e33-8ae6-b257b2e81be8}

Since the messages are cryptic in the circumstances, I had to seek out their meaning. The system has plenty of memory, so it could be that. Various suggestions came my way like installing the VirtualBox Extension Pack or reinstalling VirtualBox Extensions in the affected VM. The first had no effect, while the second was impossible.

However, there was one more suggestion: fragmentation of memory, much like file fragmentation on a disk drive. Thus, I opted for a reboot, which sorted out things, making it look as if that were the problem. If it comes up again, I might try compacting the memory with the following command, leaving for a while to complete due to any temporary system slowdown:

echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory

Because there had been some on-machine usage of an LLM, I now reckon that caused the malaise. These can be as heavy on memory as they are on processors, so fragmentation can result. That is yet another likely lesson learned from experimenting with this much-hyped technology.

Consolidation

19^th November 2009

For a while, the Windows computing side of my life has been spread across far too many versions of the pervasive operating systems with the list including 2000 (desktop and server), XP, 2003 Server, Vista and 7; 9x hasn't been part of my life for what feels like an age. At home, XP has been the mainstay for my Windows computing needs, with Vista Home Premium loaded on my Toshiba laptop. The latter variant came in for more use during that period of home computing "homelessness" and, despite a cacophony of complaints from some, it seemed to work well enough. Since the start of the year, 7 has also been in my sights with beta and release candidate instances in virtual machines, leaving me impressed enough to go popping the final version onto both the laptop and in a VM on my main PC. Microsoft finally has got around to checking product keys over the net, so that meant a licence purchase for each installation using the same downloaded 32-bit ISO image. 7 is still doing well for me, so I am beginning to wonder whether having an XP VM is becoming pointless. The reason for that train of thought is that 7 is becoming the only version that I really need for anything that takes me into the world of Windows.

Work is a different matter, with a recent move away from Windows 2000 to Vista heavily reducing my exposure to the venerable old stager (businesses usually take longer to migrate, and any good IT manager usually delays any migration by a year anyway). 2000 is sufficiently outmoded by now that even my brother was considering a move to 7 for his work because of all the Office 2007 files that have been coming his way. While he may be no technical user, the bad press gained by Vista hasn't passed him by, so a certain wariness is understandable. Saying that, my experiences with Vista haven't been unpleasant, and it always worked well on the laptop, while the same also can be said for its corporate desktop counterpart. Much of the noise centred around issues of hardware and software compatibility, and that certainly is apparent at work with my having some creases left to straighten.

With all of this general forward heaving, you might think that IE6 would be shuffling its mortal coil by now, but a recent check on visitor statistics for this website places it at about 13% share, tantalisingly close to oblivion but still too large to ignore it completely. All in all, it is lingering like that earlier blight of web design, Netscape 4.x. If I was planning a big change to the site design, setting up a Win2K VM would be in order, not to completely put off those labouring with the old curmudgeon. For smaller changes, the temptation is not to bother checking, but that is questionable when XP is set to live on for a while yet. That came with IE6 and there must be users labouring with the old curmudgeon, and that's ironic with IE8 being available for SP2 since its original launch a while back. Where all this is leading me is towards the idea of waiting for IE6 share to decrease further before tackling any major site changes. After all, I can wait with the general downward trend in market share; there has to be a point when its awkwardness makes it no longer viable to support the thing. That would be a happy day.

Is Apple ditching Windows 2000?

11^th October 2007

Having had a brainwave of using my Windows 2000 VM to play music without impacting the rest of my PC's working, I made the discovery that a bit of digging was required to find a version of iTunes and QuickTime that work with Win2K. Google delivered the goods, so here are the links:

iTunes for Win2K

QuickTime for Win2K

It all reminds me of a post that I wrote a few months back, but iTunes is now working and, thanks to VMware's Shared Folders functionality, using the host PC's digital music collection. I'll be seeing how the ring-fencing goes...

Accessing the host file system from a VMware virtual machine

9^th October 2007

I am very surprised at myself for not realising until recently that there is a way to make host data visible to a guest operating system installed in a VMware virtual machine other than resorting to using flash drives, CD's, DVD's and the like. Though you can copy and paste from the host into the VM, I have found that to be hit-and-miss at times. It was a revelation to find VMware's Shared Folders function. My suspicion is that you need VMware Tools installed in the guest operating system to make it work, which may not be trivial for some Linux distributions or UNIX. However, I was using it with a Windows 2000 guest and a Windows XP host, and it worked like a dream.

What you see below are the shared folder settings in the host's VMware interface for that virtual machine. Just clicking on the Add... button brings up a wizard that will set up the shared folder for you; it's all very user-friendly. Look for the Edit virtual machine settings link on the VM configuration page, click that and pop over to the Options tab and this what you can get.

Virtual Machine Settings - Shared Folders

The result of the above spot of configuration appears in Windows Explorer like it does below. Not only are the shared folders accessible in this way, but you can also map drive letters as if they were network resources, a very nice feature. It is definitely more accessible than working out Windows networking and getting things to happen that way.

VMware Shared Folders Displayed in Windows Explorer

Is Windows 2000 support finished?

30^th March 2007

At work, we still use Windows 2000 on our desktop and laptop PC’s. This may (or may not) surprise you, but the XP upgrade seems to have been thought a premature move, only for Vista to turn up later than might have been expected. Now that Microsoft is winding down support for Windows 2000, thoughts have started to turn to a Vista upgrade, but the realisation soon dawned that a move to Vista was a major one, and it now looks as if we will be on Windows 2000 for a little while yet, until 2008 at least.

I, too, have Windows 2000 lurking around at home as a testing platform, not a work copy I hasten to add, and software vendors increasingly are not supporting the operating system any more. Symantec is one of these, with the 2006 versions of its products being the last ones to support Windows 2000. Initially, I was left with the impression that Kaspersky was the same, but this does not seem to be the case. While the open-source community can continue their supply of productivity applications such as OpenOffice, the GIMP and so on, it is the security side that is of most concern as regards the future of Windows 2000. That said, its successors are not the prime targets for cracking, but shared code could mean that it falls foul of the same exploits.

I have yet to notice it with the hardware that I am using, but hardware advances may yet put paid to Windows 2000 like they did to members of the Windows 9x line, especially when you consider that the operating system dates from 1999. Then again, you may find that you don’t need the latest hardware, so this might not affect you. This is not all that unreasonable given that the pace of technological progress is less frenzied these days than it was in the nineties, when Windows 95 was more or less out of date by the turn of the millennium. Having the gold OEM version of Windows 95 as the basis for a Windows 9x upgrade treadmill meant that my move into the world of NT-based operating systems was a clean break with a full version of my new operating system and not its upgrade edition.

Nevertheless, there remains a feeling that Windows 2000 is being cut off prematurely and that it could last a while longer with a bit of support, even if there is a feel of the late nineties about the thing. After all, Windows 2000 probably still supports a lot of what people want to do and without the Big Brother tendencies of Vista too.