Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 21:38:10 Alex Schuster wrote:
J. Roeleveld writes:
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 03:32:40 Alex Schuster wrote:
I have an AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU, on-board
Radeon HD 3200 graphics, 4GB of memory, an 1.5 TB drive. Lots of LVM
volumes, all encrypted, except for /usr/src and portage stuff. The
system is ~amd64, and I have -march=k8-sse3 in my CFLAGS. Current
kernel is 2.6.34-tuxonice, but I also tried others. I'm running KDE4
with desktop effects enabled, X itself takes about 30-40% of CPU
time according to top. After system startup and login into KDE, 3.5G
of RAM are occupied. This increases after a while, and I need swap
space. Nothing to worry about I think.
Encrypted filesystems can cause additional with activity, but I would
expect that to remain the same over a long period.
And I just moved my PORTAGE_TMPDIR to an unencrypted partition.
Can LVM create noticeable overhead? I also resized my logical volumes a
couple of times, could this lead to some LVM fragmentation?
Theoretically, LVM will create an additional overhead.
But I am extensibly using LVM on all my machines and haven't noticed any
significant performance drops.
LVM-fragmentation is a definite possibility.
To defragment it, have a look at the following:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/source/lvm2defrag.html
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/how-do-i-lvm2-defrag-
or-move-based-on-logical-volumes-689335/
I played with the first one on an older machine once and it does work quite
nicely.
However, how is the write and read performance on those disks?
Here's the output of hdparm -t for all drives, 4 times.
/dev/sda: (SATA system drive)
Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.08 seconds = 38.37 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 194 MB in 3.11 seconds = 62.47 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 322 MB in 3.01 seconds = 106.82 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.00 seconds = 81.21 MB/sec
/dev/sdb: (PATA master)
Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.02 seconds = 37.70 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.00 seconds = 37.97 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.06 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.07 MB/sec
/dev/sdc: (PATA slave)
Timing buffered disk reads: 164 MB in 3.03 seconds = 54.21 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.02 seconds = 55.04 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.01 seconds = 55.10 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 158 MB in 3.01 seconds = 52.41 MB/sec
/dev/sdd: (SATA backup drive)
Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.55 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 312 MB in 3.01 seconds = 103.67 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 308 MB in 3.01 seconds = 102.34 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.60 MB/sec
The system drive throughput varies a lot, depending on other I/O.
Those look ok to me, except that I would expect SATA-drives to be faster then
PATA drives.
You're running KDE4, guess you went for the default and use mysql for
app- office/akonadi-server.
I switched to using sqlite for this due to issues getting it to work
with mysql. I think this might help there?
So I only have to set the sqlite use flag and remove the mysql use flag
for akonadi-server? I'm doing this now. And this also gives an example for
what is going on here:
And unset mysql.
There is one issue that needs to be resolved manually with getting it to work
with sqlite.
See:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-834883-view-
next.html?sid=3ae77f5bfba5e006e8745eedb4b6cfc4
Here is the bit that will solve the problem:
--
$ cd ~/.local/share/akonadi
$ sqlite3 akonadi.db
sqlite INSERT INTO ResourceTable (name, isVirtual) VALUES
('akonadi_search_resource', 1);
sqlite .exit
--
I have just logged into KDE. I did not log out since yesterday, and when
started a VM with vmplayer, the system swapped like crazy, I could not use
it for minutes. After this, the panel did not react any more, and the
desktop background did not redraw, so I logged out and in again. The VM
started fine now. Well, could be faster, but maybe it was okay.
Then I started answering your mail, and tried to reemerge akonadi-server,
but I had a type, so portage took a long search for akomadi-server.
meanwhile the dektop became quite unresponsive, load went high, and I made
a screenshot [*]. If you look at the top right, gkrellm shows this above
'Proc'. The first increase at the left was after I started emerge, the 2nd
at the right was after I pressed the PrtSc key.
VMWare allows virtual machines to use more memory then is actually available.
Also, there are settings in VMWare (possibly enabled by default) that cause
the memory to be duplicated onto disk.
This can cause issues like you are seeing.
Performance does not feel too bad at
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
On Thursday 26 August 2010 01:06:59 Alex Schuster wrote:
J. Roeleveld writes:
Can you post the result of: ps axu?
This will give an indication which processes are running and using a
lot of memory.
The fifth colums gives the memory, right? Should this add up to the total
of the 'used' column in free -m?
Because it does not:
wo...@weird ~ $ free -m
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 3452 3117334 0 39279
-/+ buffers/cache: 2798653
Swap: 4094 1472 2622
wo...@weird ~ $ total=0; for rss in $( ps aux | grep -v USER | awk '{print
$6}' ); do (( total += rss )); done; echo $(( total / 1024 ))
1984
So, I get a sum of around 2 G with ps, while free -m shows 4.5 G. Whoops?
Am I missing something here, or does it look like lots of RAM is not being
freed?
Wonko
Don't forget the buffers/cache.
The 2.5G you're missing is what is used in the buffers/cache line.
At least, that is how I see it.
Also, I generally look at the percentages used for the memory to find the
memory-hogs.
And your tv-viewer (java) is using quite a bit as well.
Maybe someone with more experience with tv-viewer apps can take a look and
maybe give a few pointers?
--
Joost
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
On Thursday 26 August 2010 02:11:44 Alex Schuster wrote: I think I just found the problem! I decided to give the open source ATI drivers a try again, and replaced 'fglrx' by 'radeon' in my xorg.conf. And all is fast now. Wow. I had already forgotten how fast a desktop should be. I'm not yet sure all is fine. On the first start, kwin crashed and all windows were on the first desktop, this never happened before. But it's working on the second login. I have no direct rendering, Xorg.0.log shows (EE) RADEON(0): [dri] RADEONDRIGetVersion failed (libdri too old). I had this before with xorg-server-1.7.7, now I'm emerging 1.8.2. Stay tuned. Wonko Ok, looks like your video-driver was using up too much resources. Either with all the desktop-effects or with something else. I can't help further with ATI-issues as I don't use them myself. I do know that I need to change more then just the driver in my xorg.conf when using nvidie-drivers. Am wondering if your crashes occured because of a similar issue. Eg. the dri module is only for the ATI-driver and not for the open-source one? -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Update: I think I just found the problem! I decided to give the open source ATI drivers a try again, and replaced 'fglrx' by 'radeon' in my xorg.conf. And all is fast now. Wow. I had already forgotten how fast a desktop should be. I'm not yet sure all is fine. On the first start, kwin crashed and all windows were on the first desktop, this never happened before. But it's working on the second login. I have no direct rendering, Xorg.0.log shows (EE) RADEON(0): [dri] RADEONDRIGetVersion failed (libdri too old). I had this before with xorg-server-1.7.7, now I'm emerging 1.8.2. Stay tuned. I first got no dri with xorg-server 1.8, too, and then weird effects started happening, like the shift and ctrl keys not working. When tings crashed, I got a block screen and still could move the mouse, but that was all, even after Alt-SysRQ-R (which usually helps in these cases) I could not switch to a text terminal. But after a reboot all seemed perfect, but when I was writing a followe-up mail, X crashed. And I got several more crashes after working 5 minutes in KDE. I downgraded back to xorg-server 1.7.7-r1, and now dri is working, too. Looking good! KDE is running for over an hour now, I'm not using any swap at all, amarok is emerging in the background, and mplayer is playing smoothly. I experience little rendering problems in chromium (images appear over text) and quake3 feels a little sluggish, but I can live with this. Thanks for anyone who helped! Wonko
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
On Thursday 26 August 2010 11:34:23 Alex Schuster wrote: Update: I first got no dri with xorg-server 1.8, too, and then weird effects started happening, like the shift and ctrl keys not working. When tings crashed, I got a block screen and still could move the mouse, but that was all, even after Alt-SysRQ-R (which usually helps in these cases) I could not switch to a text terminal. But after a reboot all seemed perfect, but when I was writing a followe-up mail, X crashed. And I got several more crashes after working 5 minutes in KDE. I downgraded back to xorg-server 1.7.7-r1, and now dri is working, too. Looking good! KDE is running for over an hour now, I'm not using any swap at all, amarok is emerging in the background, and mplayer is playing smoothly. I experience little rendering problems in chromium (images appear over text) and quake3 feels a little sluggish, but I can live with this. Thanks for anyone who helped! Wonko Glad you got it working properly now :) Enjoy the smoother desktop now -- Joost
[gentoo-performance] Goodbye
Hi there! YFYI, this list is about to be closed. That's a pity, I'd like to have such a list, but it is also true that there was nearly no traffic at all - I count 24 posts this year, all in the same thread except for another accidental posting. Maybe it was just that too few people knew about it? Anyway, it will be gone soon. Thanks for the help, and see you on gentoo- user :) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=334541 Wonko
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Joost Roeleveld writes: On Thursday 26 August 2010 02:11:44 Alex Schuster wrote: I think I just found the problem! I decided to give the open source ATI drivers a try again, and replaced 'fglrx' by 'radeon' in my xorg.conf. And all is fast now. Wow. I had already forgotten how fast a desktop should be. I'm not yet sure all is fine. On the first start, kwin crashed and all windows were on the first desktop, this never happened before. But it's working on the second login. I have no direct rendering, Xorg.0.log shows (EE) RADEON(0): [dri] RADEONDRIGetVersion failed (libdri too old). I had this before with xorg-server-1.7.7, now I'm emerging 1.8.2. Stay tuned. Wonko Ok, looks like your video-driver was using up too much resources. Either with all the desktop-effects or with something else. I often had desktop effects turned off. I can't help further with ATI-issues as I don't use them myself. I do know that I need to change more then just the driver in my xorg.conf when using nvidie-drivers. Am wondering if your crashes occured because of a similar issue. Eg. the dri module is only for the ATI-driver and not for the open-source one? I did not configure modules like dri in my xorg.conf, this seems tzo work automatically. With ati-drivers, I got errors in Xorg.0.log about dri and dri2 missing, apparently those come with the fglrx driver. With radeon, I get messages that dr and dri2 are loaded. So I only had to replace 'fglrx' by 'radeon' inthe device section. And to reboot. Or something. At least it did not work until I did that. I had loaded the drm kernel module by hand, so this was not the problem. Whatever, I'm glad the radeon driver is runnign fine now, for the first time after several tries. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-performance] Goodbye
On Thursday 26 August 2010 15:05:26 Alex Schuster wrote: Hi there! YFYI, this list is about to be closed. That's a pity, I'd like to have such a list, but it is also true that there was nearly no traffic at all - I count 24 posts this year, all in the same thread except for another accidental posting. Maybe it was just that too few people knew about it? Anyway, it will be gone soon. Thanks for the help, and see you on gentoo- user :) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=334541 Wonko I actually didn't find out about this list untill I was looking for a different list on the Gentoo site. Most of the activity is on the gentoo-user list, but that tends to get too busy at times. Also from me, goodbye to this list, it was nice while it lasted :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-performance] Goodbye
J. Roeleveld writes: I actually didn't find out about this list untill I was looking for a different list on the Gentoo site. Most of the activity is on the gentoo-user list, but that tends to get too busy at times. Also from me, goodbye to this list, it was nice while it lasted :) At least I will have the eternal high-score according to http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-performance-per-year.xml . Not couting those empty cheating messages from imail...@capstonecomm.com. Wonko, winner of gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Joost Roeleveld writes:
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 21:38:10 Alex Schuster wrote:
And I just moved my PORTAGE_TMPDIR to an unencrypted partition.
Can LVM create noticeable overhead? I also resized my logical volumes
a couple of times, could this lead to some LVM fragmentation?
Theoretically, LVM will create an additional overhead.
But I am extensibly using LVM on all my machines and haven't noticed
any significant performance drops.
That's also what I heard.
LVM-fragmentation is a definite possibility.
To defragment it, have a look at the following:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/source/lvm2defrag.html
Cool!
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/how-do-i-lvm2-
defrag- or-move-based-on-logical-volumes-689335/
I played with the first one on an older machine once and it does work
quite nicely.
Any idea how to check how bad the fragmentation actually is?
BTW:
wo...@weird ~ $ mount | wc -l
48
I use LVM for about everything now, it makes things so much easier. First,
I had two volume groups on my system drive, one for the system, placed at
the front where the drive is supposed to be faster, and one for data. But
I don't do this any more, it cuts down flexibility, and is probably not
worth the effort.
However, how is the write and read performance on those disks?
Here's the output of hdparm -t for all drives, 4 times.
/dev/sda: (SATA system drive)
Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.08 seconds = 38.37 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 194 MB in 3.11 seconds = 62.47 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 322 MB in 3.01 seconds = 106.82 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.00 seconds = 81.21 MB/sec
/dev/sdb: (PATA master)
Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.02 seconds = 37.70 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.00 seconds = 37.97 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.06 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.07 MB/sec
/dev/sdc: (PATA slave)
Timing buffered disk reads: 164 MB in 3.03 seconds = 54.21 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.02 seconds = 55.04 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.01 seconds = 55.10 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 158 MB in 3.01 seconds = 52.41 MB/sec
/dev/sdd: (SATA backup drive)
Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.55 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 312 MB in 3.01 seconds = 103.67 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 308 MB in 3.01 seconds = 102.34 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.60 MB/sec
The system drive throughput varies a lot, depending on other I/O.
Those look ok to me, except that I would expect SATA-drives to be
faster then PATA drives.
Well, they are, except for the sometimes busy system drive. And by now I
get similar results as for the 2nd SATA drive, throughput is between 90
and 110 MB/sec.
You're running KDE4, guess you went for the default and use mysql
for app- office/akonadi-server.
I switched to using sqlite for this due to issues getting it to
work with mysql. I think this might help there?
So I only have to set the sqlite use flag and remove the mysql use
flag for akonadi-server? I'm doing this now. And this also gives an
example for what is going on here:
And unset mysql.
There is one issue that needs to be resolved manually with getting it
to work with sqlite.
See:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-834883-view-
next.html?sid=3ae77f5bfba5e006e8745eedb4b6cfc4
Here is the bit that will solve the problem:
--
$ cd ~/.local/share/akonadi
$ sqlite3 akonadi.db
sqlite INSERT INTO ResourceTable (name, isVirtual) VALUES
('akonadi_search_resource', 1);
sqlite .exit
I did nothing about this by now, but I probabyl will soon. Thanks for the
tip!
I also had trouble with akonadi in the past, and it still gives
warnings/errors at every startup, but at least it seems to work now.
Disk I/O is, in my experience, a very common cause for
freeze-ups. Can you test with unencrypted disks to see if the
issue occurs then as well?
Yes, I can do this. It's some work, but I tried so much, why not
this. I have some free space, and already have written a backup
script that automatically creates LVM snapshots, decrypts them, and
backs it up, so I can do this from the running system.
Ok, am interested to see if running unencrypted actually has benefits
here.
Me too, but as things are quite faster now already, the priority for this
task is much lower than it was yesterday :)
Can you post the result of: ps axu?
This will give an indication which processes are running and using
a lot of memory.
First, here is free -m:
total used free sharedbuffers
cached
Mem: 3452 3225226 0 54
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
On Thursday 26 August 2010 17:48:44 Alex Schuster wrote:
Joost Roeleveld writes:
LVM-fragmentation is a definite possibility.
To defragment it, have a look at the following:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/source/lvm2defrag.html
Cool!
Do test it first and check what it wants to do.
Basically, it moves all the blocks around untill you have them all in the
sequence you want them.
There are some limitations, but it worked when I tested it.
Btw, I provide no warranty what-so-ever, especially as I did not write any
part of it :)
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/how-do-i-lvm2-
defrag- or-move-based-on-logical-volumes-689335/
I played with the first one on an older machine once and it does work
quite nicely.
Any idea how to check how bad the fragmentation actually is?
Yes:
desktop ~ # lvs -o lv_name,seg_pe_ranges
LV PE Ranges
distfiles /dev/sda4:37632-39423
home /dev/sda4:9472-12031
home /dev/sda4:39424-40703
home /dev/sda4:42240-44799
opt/dev/sda4:8192-9471
opt/dev/sda4:40704-42239
packages /dev/sda4:45312-47359
portage/dev/sda4:3072-3327
swap /dev/sda4:0-3071
tmp/dev/sda4:3328-4607
usr/dev/sda4:6400-8191
usr/dev/sda4:81664-81919
usr/dev/sda4:44800-45311
var/dev/sda4:4608-5119
vartmp /dev/sda4:5120-6399
vartmp /dev/sda4:60160-61183
virtualbox /dev/sda4:12032-32511
virtualbox /dev/sda4:76544-81663
virtualbox /dev/sda4:58112-60159
virtualbox /dev/sda4:81920-83310
virtualbox /dev/sda4:47360-58111
virtualbox /dev/sda4:32512-33680
home, vartmp and virtualbox are fragmented into different sections.
Alternatively, the first part of that script actually generates a text-file
which you then need to edit into the next text-file.
The first one actually shows you how the different parts are laid out.
BTW:
wo...@weird ~ $ mount | wc -l
48
desktop ~ # lvs | wc -l
12
server ~ # lvs | wc -l
99
(Ok, this one runs virtual machines with Xen, but online-resizing works and
xen-virtual machines get notified of the new size)
I use LVM for about everything now, it makes things so much easier. First,
I had two volume groups on my system drive, one for the system, placed at
the front where the drive is supposed to be faster, and one for data. But
I don't do this any more, it cuts down flexibility, and is probably not
worth the effort.
I don't think it's worth the effort as well. You can still move the LVs around
physically using the lvm-defrag tool.
It's very verbose by nature as it doesn't do any changes untill you tell it
to. And you're the one starting the final script.
That tool basically generates a script that calls pvmove a couple of times.
And the script even contains comments describing what it is doing for each
step.
It does expect the user to determine which LVs end up where.
Those look ok to me, except that I would expect SATA-drives to be
faster then PATA drives.
Well, they are, except for the sometimes busy system drive. And by now I
get similar results as for the 2nd SATA drive, throughput is between 90
and 110 MB/sec.
Btw, I tend to use hdparm -Tt device to do the testing:
desktop ~ # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 3456 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1728.51 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 276 MB in 3.01 seconds = 91.75 MB/sec
And unset mysql.
There is one issue that needs to be resolved manually with getting it
to work with sqlite.
See:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-834883-view-
next.html?sid=3ae77f5bfba5e006e8745eedb4b6cfc4
Here is the bit that will solve the problem:
--
$ cd ~/.local/share/akonadi
$ sqlite3 akonadi.db
sqlite INSERT INTO ResourceTable (name, isVirtual) VALUES
('akonadi_search_resource', 1);
sqlite .exit
I did nothing about this by now, but I probabyl will soon. Thanks for the
tip!
I also had trouble with akonadi in the past, and it still gives
warnings/errors at every startup, but at least it seems to work now.
It doesn't complain for me anymore since I switched to sqlite.
Main reason for that: I don't like MySQL and prefer not to run a full database
on my desktop anyway. And configuring it to use the Database on the server goes
too far.
Disk I/O is, in my experience, a very common cause for
freeze-ups. Can you test with unencrypted disks to see if the
issue occurs then as well?
Yes, I can do this. It's some work, but I tried so much, why not
this. I have some free space, and already have written a backup
script that automatically creates LVM snapshots, decrypts them, and
backs it up, so I can do this from the running system.
Ok, am interested to see if running unencrypted actually has benefits
here.
Me too, but as things are quite faster now already, the priority for this
task is much lower than it was yesterday :)
Ofcourse, depending on
Re: [gentoo-performance] Goodbye
On Thursday 26 August 2010 17:26:04 Alex Schuster wrote: J. Roeleveld writes: I actually didn't find out about this list untill I was looking for a different list on the Gentoo site. Most of the activity is on the gentoo-user list, but that tends to get too busy at times. Also from me, goodbye to this list, it was nice while it lasted :) At least I will have the eternal high-score according to http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-performance-per-year.xml . Not couting those empty cheating messages from imail...@capstonecomm.com. Yes, with me in second place Wonko, winner of gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org Joost, runner-up of gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Hi Alex, On Wednesday 25 August 2010 03:32:40 Alex Schuster wrote: Me again. I have an AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU, on-board Radeon HD 3200 graphics, 4GB of memory, an 1.5 TB drive. Lots of LVM volumes, all encrypted, except for /usr/src and portage stuff. The system is ~amd64, and I have -march=k8-sse3 in my CFLAGS. Current kernel is 2.6.34-tuxonice, but I also tried others. I'm running KDE4 with desktop effects enabled, X itself takes about 30-40% of CPU time according to top. After system startup and login into KDE, 3.5G of RAM are occupied. This increases after a while, and I need swap space. Nothing to worry about I think. Encrypted filesystems can cause additional with activity, but I would expect that to remain the same over a long period. However, how is the write and read performance on those disks? You're running KDE4, guess you went for the default and use mysql for app- office/akonadi-server. I switched to using sqlite for this due to issues getting it to work with mysql. I think this might help there? Performance does not feel too bad at first. But after a while, I cannot even play videos during emerges. The playback stutters, sometimes I have pauses for several seconds. As long as there is no swap space occpied, it's not so bad I think. Maybe I have a probelm with disk I/O, and things get much worse when swapping occurs. When I look at iotop, I see various programs like chromium and various KDE applications appear. I guess that's normal, but should not be noticeable. Hey, there were times when I created a 2G tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage, with only 3G on my 32bit system. BTW, I lowered my swappiness to 10. This helps a little I think, because the swapping occurs later, the system is more responsive. Do you also encrypt swap? Disk I/O is, in my experience, a very common cause for freeze-ups. Can you test with unencrypted disks to see if the issue occurs then as well? And I have similar problems when copying data between some old PATA drives. When I copy stuff and do a mkfs on another partition, mplayer sometimes stutters and hangs for ten seconds. No joy. Working with KDE sucks, switching dektops sometimes takes ages, and even now I am typing faster than kmail can display the characters. That's with am emerge of chromium running, with PORTAGE_NICENESS=10 and using ionice -c 3. Load is around 8, but sometimes gets even higher. And then, load suddenly drops back to lower values, as if somthing was blocking. Some applications swapping, maybe. Very possibly, maybe an idea to check which applications are hogging the memory. If it is the swapping of the system, then this will be caused by the most memory-hungry processes. Can you post the result of: ps axu? This will give an indication which processes are running and using a lot of memory. Now I am out of ideas. I really hope someone here has one. I cannot work with this system any more when emerges are going on. Had similar issues with a desktop machine myself, managed to kill some features that I wasn't using and this solved most of the problems. I put my kernel config, make.conf, dmesg and such stuff to http://www.wonkology.org/gentoo/ in case someone wants to have a look at it. Any help is GREATLY appreciated. Lets see where checking for IO-speeds and memory-usage of your apps take us :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote: Now I am out of ideas. I really hope someone here has one. I cannot work with this system any more when emerges are going on. I put my kernel config, make.conf, dmesg and such stuff to http://www.wonkology.org/gentoo/ in case someone wants to have a look at it. Any help is GREATLY appreciated. Just a thought: why -ggdb in your CFLAGS? If you have =gcc-4.2, try: CFLAGS=-march=native -O2 -pipe Then you should re-emerge gcc itself (twice?) and then world: # emerge --oneshot binutils gcc virtual/libc # emerge -e world Best of luck. -- Mansour Moufid
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Dnia 2010-08-25, o godz. 03:32:40 Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org napisał(a): Me again. I wrote here about my problems with mplayer stuttering during emerges. Then I wrote that the problem went away when I installed Gentoo again, moving from i686 to x86_64. But the problems are back, and worse than ever. This is driving me crazy. CRAZY! I have an AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU, on-board Radeon HD 3200 graphics, 4GB of memory, an 1.5 TB drive. Lots of LVM volumes, all encrypted, except for /usr/src and portage stuff. The system is ~amd64, and I have -march=k8-sse3 in my CFLAGS. Current kernel is 2.6.34-tuxonice, but I also tried others. I'm running KDE4 with desktop effects enabled, X itself takes about 30-40% of CPU time according to top. After system startup and login into KDE, 3.5G of RAM are occupied. This increases after a while, and I need swap space. Nothing to worry about I think. Performance does not feel too bad at first. But after a while, I cannot even play videos during emerges. The playback stutters, sometimes I have pauses for several seconds. As long as there is no swap space occpied, it's not so bad I think. Maybe I have a probelm with disk I/O, and things get much worse when swapping occurs. When I look at iotop, I see various programs like chromium and various KDE applications appear. I guess that's normal, but should not be noticeable. Hey, there were times when I created a 2G tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage, with only 3G on my 32bit system. BTW, I lowered my swappiness to 10. This helps a little I think, because the swapping occurs later, the system is more responsive. And it feels like things get worse and worse, it's not like there was a specific point when I thought it's slow again. Like there were some degragation going on - fragmentation, bitrot, I don't know. It's just how it feels to me. I am debugging this for some days now. I tried different kernels, from 2.6.29 to 2.6.35, including the kernel I had running after the switch to 64bit, when I thought all was fine. No change. But all kernels were configured nearly identical, so I booted a GRML live-cd and used this kernel .config as a template. Does not feel better. When I thought the problem was gone, I had installed the system on my 2nd 1.5 TB drive. Meanwhile I copied the partitions back to the 1st drive, so I suspected a difference in the drives. I use the 2nd drive for backups (using rdiff-backup), with similar partitions, so I only have to exchange the LVM volume group names of the two drives in order to run my system from the 2nd one. I tried this, but it did not help. And I have similar problems when copying data between some old PATA drives. When I copy stuff and do a mkfs on another partition, mplayer sometimes stutters and hangs for ten seconds. No joy. Working with KDE sucks, switching dektops sometimes takes ages, and even now I am typing faster than kmail can display the characters. That's with am emerge of chromium running, with PORTAGE_NICENESS=10 and using ionice -c 3. Load is around 8, but sometimes gets even higher. And then, load suddenly drops back to lower values, as if somthing was blocking. Some applications swapping, maybe. Now I am out of ideas. I really hope someone here has one. I cannot work with this system any more when emerges are going on. I put my kernel config, make.conf, dmesg and such stuff to http://www.wonkology.org/gentoo/ in case someone wants to have a look at it. Any help is GREATLY appreciated. Wonko Checkout configuration of your video driver - X should not take more than 5% of cpu when iddle (with some minor effects). Perhaps kde is not using OpenGL? Do you have OpenGL enabled? Amount of ram you have should be sufficent to compile everything without access to swap space. -- Kacper Kopczyński
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Mansour Moufid writes: On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote: Just a thought: why -ggdb in your CFLAGS? If you have =gcc-4.2, try: CFLAGS=-march=native -O2 -pipe I just added this some days ago in order to give debug information for a a bug in strigi I had reported. I forgot to take it out, but so far only few packages were compiled with this setting. But thanks for mentioning this, I removed the debug setting now. But should it matter? Optimization still happens. And when these interrupts hapen, the CPU is not at 100%. I do not use march=native because I sometimes use another host with distcc. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Kacper Kopczyński writes: Checkout configuration of your video driver - X should not take more than 5% of cpu when iddle (with some minor effects). Perhaps kde is not using OpenGL? Do you have OpenGL enabled? I'm using ati-drivers-10.7 with xorg-server-1.7.7-r1. No special settings in xorg.conf. I never had much success with the open source radeon drivers. First they did not run at all, I either did not get X started, or I only got a blank screen. One month ago then I had success with xf86- video-ati-6.13.1, but X crashed instantly when I moved the mouse cursor onto the KDE panel. But now I have a new KDe version, so I wil give them a try soon. Wow, at the moment X takes 95%. When I disable desktop effects, it's down to 5%. When enable desktop effects again, X uses 60%. Now I went into systemsettings - desktop effects - all effects, and played around with the individual settings. When I disable the blur effect (two lines after transparency), X usage is at less than 20%. Weird, I do not even see any difference this effect makes. Cool, much less X usage by disabling something I did not even notice :) Is 15-25% X usage still too much? I have several plasmoids running, so I'm not surprised this eats some performance. BTW, at [*] there are some screenshots of my desktop, which did not change much since I did the screenshots. The system already feels better now. But this cannot be the only problem, I sometimes (especially during large emerges) turn desktop effects off, and when I have too much load, they are turned off automatically. Amount of ram you have should be sufficent to compile everything without access to swap space. Damn right. I used to have less memory, and ran very memory-intensive applications, and the system was much more responsive than now. Wonko [*] http://www.wonkology.org/comp/desktop/2010-06-19/
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote: I just added this some days ago in order to give debug information for a a bug in strigi I had reported. I forgot to take it out, but so far only few packages were compiled with this setting. But thanks for mentioning this, I removed the debug setting now. But should it matter? Optimization still happens. And when these interrupts hapen, the CPU is not at 100%. I do not use march=native because I sometimes use another host with distcc. Oh, I thought that might have been behind the memory issue... But actually it sounds like you don't have direct rendering? Check with glxinfo (from x11-apps/mesa-progs): $ glxinfo | grep -i direct If not then check out this thread in the forums for the correct kernel configuration: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-840613-highlight-radeon+3200.html If that works you can also try building the KDE libraries with -Os to help with memory. I don't think you should be using swap at all. -- Mansour Moufid
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
J. Roeleveld writes: On Wednesday 25 August 2010 03:32:40 Alex Schuster wrote: I have an AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU, on-board Radeon HD 3200 graphics, 4GB of memory, an 1.5 TB drive. Lots of LVM volumes, all encrypted, except for /usr/src and portage stuff. The system is ~amd64, and I have -march=k8-sse3 in my CFLAGS. Current kernel is 2.6.34-tuxonice, but I also tried others. I'm running KDE4 with desktop effects enabled, X itself takes about 30-40% of CPU time according to top. After system startup and login into KDE, 3.5G of RAM are occupied. This increases after a while, and I need swap space. Nothing to worry about I think. Encrypted filesystems can cause additional with activity, but I would expect that to remain the same over a long period. And I just moved my PORTAGE_TMPDIR to an unencrypted partition. Can LVM create noticeable overhead? I also resized my logical volumes a couple of times, could this lead to some LVM fragmentation? However, how is the write and read performance on those disks? Here's the output of hdparm -t for all drives, 4 times. /dev/sda: (SATA system drive) Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.08 seconds = 38.37 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 194 MB in 3.11 seconds = 62.47 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 322 MB in 3.01 seconds = 106.82 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.00 seconds = 81.21 MB/sec /dev/sdb: (PATA master) Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.02 seconds = 37.70 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.00 seconds = 37.97 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.06 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.07 MB/sec /dev/sdc: (PATA slave) Timing buffered disk reads: 164 MB in 3.03 seconds = 54.21 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.02 seconds = 55.04 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.01 seconds = 55.10 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 158 MB in 3.01 seconds = 52.41 MB/sec /dev/sdd: (SATA backup drive) Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.55 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 312 MB in 3.01 seconds = 103.67 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 308 MB in 3.01 seconds = 102.34 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.60 MB/sec The system drive throughput varies a lot, depending on other I/O. I You're running KDE4, guess you went for the default and use mysql for app- office/akonadi-server. I switched to using sqlite for this due to issues getting it to work with mysql. I think this might help there? So I only have to set the sqlite use flag and remove the mysql use flag for akonadi-server? I'm doing this now. And this also gives an example for what is going on here: I have just logged into KDE. I did not log out since yesterday, and when started a VM with vmplayer, the system swapped like crazy, I could not use it for minutes. After this, the panel did not react any more, and the desktop background did not redraw, so I logged out and in again. The VM started fine now. Well, could be faster, but maybe it was okay. Then I started answering your mail, and tried to reemerge akonadi-server, but I had a type, so portage took a long search for akomadi-server. meanwhile the dektop became quite unresponsive, load went high, and I made a screenshot [*]. If you look at the top right, gkrellm shows this above 'Proc'. The first increase at the left was after I started emerge, the 2nd at the right was after I pressed the PrtSc key. Performance does not feel too bad at first. But after a while, I cannot even play videos during emerges. The playback stutters, sometimes I have pauses for several seconds. As long as there is no swap space occpied, it's not so bad I think. Maybe I have a probelm with disk I/O, and things get much worse when swapping occurs. When I look at iotop, I see various programs like chromium and various KDE applications appear. I guess that's normal, but should not be noticeable. Hey, there were times when I created a 2G tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage, with only 3G on my 32bit system. BTW, I lowered my swappiness to 10. This helps a little I think, because the swapping occurs later, the system is more responsive. Do you also encrypt swap? Yes. Disk I/O is, in my experience, a very common cause for freeze-ups. Can you test with unencrypted disks to see if the issue occurs then as well? Yes, I can do this. It's some work, but I tried so much, why not this. I have some free space, and already have written a backup script that automatically creates LVM snapshots, decrypts them, and backs it up, so I can do this from the running system. And I have similar problems when copying data between some old PATA drives. When I copy stuff and do a mkfs on another partition, mplayer sometimes stutters and hangs for ten seconds. No joy. Working with KDE sucks,
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Mansour Moufid writes: But actually it sounds like you don't have direct rendering? Check with glxinfo (from x11-apps/mesa-progs): $ glxinfo | grep -i direct Thanks, but opengl is running fine. Well, it took me quite a while until I got it working, but finally there was a version of ati-drivers that worked, and from then on it kept working fine. If that works you can also try building the KDE libraries with -Os to help with memory. I don't think you should be using swap at all. Me too. So -Os would only be a workaround to make the probelm less bad. I hope I find a better solution. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
I think I just found the problem! I decided to give the open source ATI drivers a try again, and replaced 'fglrx' by 'radeon' in my xorg.conf. And all is fast now. Wow. I had already forgotten how fast a desktop should be. I'm not yet sure all is fine. On the first start, kwin crashed and all windows were on the first desktop, this never happened before. But it's working on the second login. I have no direct rendering, Xorg.0.log shows (EE) RADEON(0): [dri] RADEONDRIGetVersion failed (libdri too old). I had this before with xorg-server-1.7.7, now I'm emerging 1.8.2. Stay tuned. Wonko
[gentoo-performance] Horrible performance
Me again. I wrote here about my problems with mplayer stuttering during emerges. Then I wrote that the problem went away when I installed Gentoo again, moving from i686 to x86_64. But the problems are back, and worse than ever. This is driving me crazy. CRAZY! I have an AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU, on-board Radeon HD 3200 graphics, 4GB of memory, an 1.5 TB drive. Lots of LVM volumes, all encrypted, except for /usr/src and portage stuff. The system is ~amd64, and I have -march=k8-sse3 in my CFLAGS. Current kernel is 2.6.34-tuxonice, but I also tried others. I'm running KDE4 with desktop effects enabled, X itself takes about 30-40% of CPU time according to top. After system startup and login into KDE, 3.5G of RAM are occupied. This increases after a while, and I need swap space. Nothing to worry about I think. Performance does not feel too bad at first. But after a while, I cannot even play videos during emerges. The playback stutters, sometimes I have pauses for several seconds. As long as there is no swap space occpied, it's not so bad I think. Maybe I have a probelm with disk I/O, and things get much worse when swapping occurs. When I look at iotop, I see various programs like chromium and various KDE applications appear. I guess that's normal, but should not be noticeable. Hey, there were times when I created a 2G tmpfs for /var/tmp/portage, with only 3G on my 32bit system. BTW, I lowered my swappiness to 10. This helps a little I think, because the swapping occurs later, the system is more responsive. And it feels like things get worse and worse, it's not like there was a specific point when I thought it's slow again. Like there were some degragation going on - fragmentation, bitrot, I don't know. It's just how it feels to me. I am debugging this for some days now. I tried different kernels, from 2.6.29 to 2.6.35, including the kernel I had running after the switch to 64bit, when I thought all was fine. No change. But all kernels were configured nearly identical, so I booted a GRML live-cd and used this kernel .config as a template. Does not feel better. When I thought the problem was gone, I had installed the system on my 2nd 1.5 TB drive. Meanwhile I copied the partitions back to the 1st drive, so I suspected a difference in the drives. I use the 2nd drive for backups (using rdiff-backup), with similar partitions, so I only have to exchange the LVM volume group names of the two drives in order to run my system from the 2nd one. I tried this, but it did not help. And I have similar problems when copying data between some old PATA drives. When I copy stuff and do a mkfs on another partition, mplayer sometimes stutters and hangs for ten seconds. No joy. Working with KDE sucks, switching dektops sometimes takes ages, and even now I am typing faster than kmail can display the characters. That's with am emerge of chromium running, with PORTAGE_NICENESS=10 and using ionice -c 3. Load is around 8, but sometimes gets even higher. And then, load suddenly drops back to lower values, as if somthing was blocking. Some applications swapping, maybe. Now I am out of ideas. I really hope someone here has one. I cannot work with this system any more when emerges are going on. I put my kernel config, make.conf, dmesg and such stuff to http://www.wonkology.org/gentoo/ in case someone wants to have a look at it. Any help is GREATLY appreciated. Wonko
[gentoo-performance] Re: Bad desktop performance, I think
Oh, well. It's been quite a while. I wanted to reply earlier, but then
kmail crashed and I lost the mail. ThenI was quite busy with other things,
and so on.
Mansour Moufid wrote:
Hello all,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org
wrote:
I am a little disappointed by the performance of my system. mplayer
sometimes stutters a little during the calculation phase of emerge
-DpN @world, swfdec-player does so even more. Well, sometimes even
without emerges, I guess this flash player is not coded so well.
My system is not the fastest, silence and low power consumption was
more important for me. Still, it should be fast enough I think. I
have an AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU (using -march),
4GB of memory, an 1.5 TB drive. The whole system is encrypted
(aes-xts-plain) and LVMed. While the LVM overhead should be small,
encryption of course creates some extra load. /var/tmp/portage is an
unencrypted tmpfs volume though. kernel is 2.6.31-tuxonice. I'm
running KDE4 with desktop effects enabled (running ati-drivers), X
itself takes about 30-40% of CPU time according to top. mplayer
itself needs less than 20%.
I also use LVM encryption, and mplayer plays 720p at 30 fps just fine
with only the integrated Intel graphics and 1 GB of RAM. So, I suspect
you are just not using the full potential of your CPU.
Yeah, playing movies without stuttering should be no problem nowadays.
If you haven't already: grep flags /proc/cpuinfo; add any of the
{mmx,mmext,sse,sse2,ssse3,3dnow,3dnowext} flags there along with
custom-cpuopts to your mplayer line in /etc/portage/package.use;
then re-emerge of course.
I did that, but did not see much of a difference.
Anyways, this would be a workaround only, the real problem must be
somewhere else. With movies it's only most annoying. But also amarok is
interrupted. Any playing Quake3 when updatedb kicks in is no joy, too.
With 4GB if RAM you should probably also set swappiness to a lower
value than default.
Thanks, that was a good idea! This made the system more responsive when
switching desktops. The drawback, however, is when starting memory-
intensive applications, this takes really really long then.
That's all I can think of for now, good luck!
This weekend I installed Gentoo again, this time with 64bit. And all those
problems are just gone. Even with [io]nice, emerges do not make mplayer
stutter in any way. Weird, because the setup is nearly identical - same
packages, same make.conf (except for compiler flags), nearly identical
kernel .config. I just removed 2GB, with the remaining 2GB the system is
running much better than with 2.75GB and 32bits.
Whatever - I'm happy now.
Wonko
[gentoo-performance] subject
subject
Bad desktop performance, I think (was: Re: [gentoo-performance] Hello? Thump-thump?)
Nicholas J. Michalek writes: Roll-call thread! I'm here! Cool. Hi Nicholas! Hi Fritze! Indeed, this list has tended to have periods of dormancy... like me, we probably all forgot about it until this recent resurrection. My post took awhile until it showed up, so had already filed a bug report about this list not really existing. Now I closed it :) Rather than let it die again, I say we throw out ideas for discussion. I think we should have regular posts commenting on performance improvements (or otherwise) of recent package updates, such as openrc or glibc, or anything anyone is interested in. Sounds good. I'll start then with what I was about to post on gentoo-user, when I remembered that there should be this list. Hi there! I am a little disappointed by the performance of my system. mplayer sometimes stutters a little during the calculation phase of emerge -DpN @world, swfdec-player does so even more. Well, sometimes even without emerges, I guess this flash player is not coded so well. My system is not the fastest, silence and low power consumption was more important for me. Still, it should be fast enough I think. I have an AMD Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU (using -march), 4GB of memory, an 1.5 TB drive. The whole system is encrypted (aes-xts-plain) and LVMed. While the LVM overhead should be small, encryption of course creates some extra load. /var/tmp/portage is an unencrypted tmpfs volume though. kernel is 2.6.31-tuxonice. I'm running KDE4 with desktop effects enabled (running ati-drivers), X itself takes about 30-40% of CPU time according to top. mplayer itself needs less than 20%. PORTAGE_NICENESS is 15, PORTAGE_IONICE_COMMAND uses ionice -c 3. I thought that with these settings emerges should not be noticeable. mplayer shows little stutters even with a niceness of 19. This looks wrong to me. The kernel is configured as low-latency desktop. BTW, the kernel config is here, just in case someone wants to have a look: http://wonkology.org/~wonko/stuff/gentoo/config-genkernel-x86-2.6.31- tuxonice_k8 So what I am asking is: 1) What might be wrong? 2) Tuning tricks. Tweaking the schedulers, different kernel sources. mm- sources perhaps? But they look rather old. zen-sources? I might give them a try. But then, I like software suspend, and tuxonice is regarded to be better than the normal software suspend, and even with tuxonice I tend to have problems. Any input is appreciated. It's not a big problem, though, I could live with that. But this is Gentoo, we like to tweak things, don't we? Let's get this list alive again. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-performance] Hello? Thump-thump?
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:56:31 -0500 Nicholas J. Michalek djpha...@gmail.com wrote: anything anyone is interested in. Anyone use Xen? I'd appreciate anything that helped performance there (about to dive in myself). enjoi -- Steven Lembark 85-09 90th St. Workhorse Computing Woodhaven, NY, 11421 lemb...@wrkhors.com+1 888 359 3508
Re: Bad desktop performance, I think (was: Re: [gentoo-performance] Hello? Thump-thump?)
Hello all,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
I am a little disappointed by the performance of my system. mplayer
sometimes stutters a little during the calculation phase of emerge -DpN
@world, swfdec-player does so even more. Well, sometimes even without
emerges, I guess this flash player is not coded so well.
My system is not the fastest, silence and low power consumption was more
important for me. Still, it should be fast enough I think. I have an AMD
Athlon(tm) Dual Core Processor 4850e CPU (using -march), 4GB of memory, an
1.5 TB drive. The whole system is encrypted (aes-xts-plain) and LVMed.
While the LVM overhead should be small, encryption of course creates some
extra load. /var/tmp/portage is an unencrypted tmpfs volume though. kernel
is 2.6.31-tuxonice. I'm running KDE4 with desktop effects enabled (running
ati-drivers), X itself takes about 30-40% of CPU time according to top.
mplayer itself needs less than 20%.
I also use LVM encryption, and mplayer plays 720p at 30 fps just fine
with only the integrated Intel graphics and 1 GB of RAM. So, I suspect
you are just not using the full potential of your CPU.
If you haven't already: grep flags /proc/cpuinfo; add any of the
{mmx,mmext,sse,sse2,ssse3,3dnow,3dnowext} flags there along with
custom-cpuopts to your mplayer line in /etc/portage/package.use;
then re-emerge of course.
With 4GB if RAM you should probably also set swappiness to a lower
value than default.
That's all I can think of for now, good luck!
--
Mansour Moufid
[gentoo-performance] Hello? Thump-thump?
Hi there! Well... is there anybody out there? According to http://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.performance , the last post is half a year ago. Does this mean performance is already okay for everyone? Or does no one bother to post here, because the audience seems to be low, and uses the gentoo-user list instead? Just wondering, Wonko
Re: [gentoo-performance] Hello? Thump-thump?
Hey Alex, I'm here, and I don't really believe that performance isn't the kind of thing that people should consider okay. It's good to push limits. :) Nice to meet you, --Fritze On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote: Hi there! Well... is there anybody out there? According to http://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.performance , the last post is half a year ago. Does this mean performance is already okay for everyone? Or does no one bother to post here, because the audience seems to be low, and uses the gentoo-user list instead? Just wondering, Wonko
[gentoo-performance]
unsubscribe
[gentoo-performance] Hardened-performance
Hi list! Can anyone tell me if using a hardened-profile has any performance implications? To be more specific: I use an AMD64 X2 for realtime video encoding and some network services and the company I work for uses some of their (Intranet web and file) servers for high performance computing. Would using stuff like PaX reduce, for example, memory allocation, memory access and context switching? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-performance] Hardened-performance
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:53:36 +0200 Florian Philipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi list! Can anyone tell me if using a hardened-profile has any performance implications? To be more specific: I use an AMD64 X2 for realtime video encoding and some network services and the company I work for uses some of their (Intranet web and file) servers for high performance computing. Would using stuff like PaX reduce, for example, memory allocation, memory access and context switching? Never mind, just found this myself: http://www.pjvenda.org/linux/doc/pax-performance/ Quote:AMD64, PPC64, Alpha and other architectures benefit with PaX's PAGEEXEC memory protection at no cost whatsoever! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-performance] TCP perfomance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kevin Faulkner wrote: I haven't played around with different congestion algorithms all that much, I generally have stuck with Westwood. MTU size... with all the different machines we have, I prefer to stay with the default. Window size is a good point. Have a look at the linux gazette, there's a guy there that wrote a very extensive overview on different TCP congestion algorithms. http://linuxgazette.net/135/pfeiffer.html Ramon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFITjcEwiVM6CtDHQ0RAhRFAJ4+8J8sUWWsH1tbUKtTV2zJeqtxqQCfbmsh 61CH7oj43zsBSceBu+ZCTo4= =5ARe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Unsubscribe
We could make a running gag from it.. :) Jan -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] Unsubscribe
Nicholas J. Michalek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Jan H?bner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We could make a running gag from it.. :) OR, we could gag and run away from it... OR, we could gag you and make you take off running... Hey, hey, hey... Take all that talk about gagging to gentoo-kink. -- Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of human rights? Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. --Ghost in the Shell -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] TCP perfomance
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp: http://freebie.fatpipe.org/~mjb/Drawings/TCP_Header.png so, that doesn't make any sense... Your right and I'm wrong. Its not in the header, its thrown on at the end ...at the end of the tcp header, it's a tcp option. (I didn't understood that the first time I read this email). It might be good to disable all tcp optional headers.. Also there might be important to look at issues such has: - mtu size - tcp window - set the don't fragment flag (this can offload the routers and optimize the mtu for the whole connection path) - use the BIC algorithm (from what I've read, that's my default choice nowadays... but for some specific workload there might be better algorithms) try doing cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/tcp/option008.htm http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5NP0C153PI.html kind regards! -- Miguel Sousa Filipe -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
Re: [gentoo-performance] TCP perfomance
There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp: http://freebie.fatpipe.org/~mjb/Drawings/TCP_Header.png so, that doesn't make any sense... On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Kevin Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I also forgot that I had been subscribed to this list. To get a topic going I was at work and I argued that we should disable TCP timestamps. I was discussing in a meeting that this would cut back (perhaps very slightly) on the amount of work that the system has to do before sending a packet out. In a high traffic system (like a file server or a mail server or in my case a Oracle Database), not having to throw this on every packet should increase performance ever so slightly. Disabling this would benefit security, as the attacker would not be able to gather the up time from the targeted system. Like I said this might be a slight increase, but its an increase none-the-less, and when you have a DBA crying about poor network speed or IO, or the system is too heavily loaded, then this keeps him quiet for a few days. :) Any thoughts??? -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list -- Miguel Sousa Filipe -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] TCP perfomance
Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp: http://freebie.fatpipe.org/~mjb/Drawings/TCP_Header.png so, that doesn't make any sense... Your right and I'm wrong. Its not in the header, its thrown on at the end try doing cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/tcp/option008.htm http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5NP0C153PI.html -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:45:35 +0200 Dirk Wende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sigh* How many people have to try it before the last one _finally_ recognizes that it doesn't work that way? In other words: RTFM http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
Florian Philipp wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:45:35 +0200 Dirk Wende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sigh* How many people have to try it before the last one _finally_ recognizes that it doesn't work that way? In other words: RTFM http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml To be fair to those unsubscribing, I'd like to mention that most of them just opened their email and saw a couple hundred emails with a subject of [gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!. I doubt they saw any of the unsubscribe attempts since most were replies and would not be shown in most threaded email clients. It is annoying, though. Does anyone know what happened? I saw some theories, but no hard This happened... posts. PaulNM -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
RE: [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
how do i unsubscribe from this? Original Message Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe From: Florian Philipp [EMAIL PROTECTED].net Date: Fri, June 06, 2008 2:30 pm To: gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:45:35 +0200 Dirk Wende dwende@versanet.de wrote: *sigh* How many people have to try it before the last one _finally_ recognizes that it doesn't work that way? In other words: RTFM http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how do i unsubscribe from this? Original Message Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe From: Florian Philipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED].net Date: Fri, June 06, 2008 2:30 pm To: gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailto:gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:45:35 +0200 Dirk Wende [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose wrote: *sigh* How many people have to try it before the last one _finally_ recognizes that it doesn't work that way? In other words: RTFM http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xmlhttp://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list Is this a joke? The email you replied to tells you exactly how to do that. http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml Tenth line of text: To unsubscribe from a list, send an empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So send an empty email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] PaulNM -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
2008/6/6 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: how do i unsubscribe from this? As Florian pointed out: In other words: RTFM http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml Alex -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Error: No list Specified in Unsubcribe Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
what's wrong with the mailing system, it looks like in a loop of the mailling program. is it been hacked? On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Florian Philipp schrieb: On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:40:33 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (List Server) wrote: Am I the only one who gets a lot of these messages today? me too
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
unsubscribe On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:54 AM, List Server [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
Hi *, I guess 209.50.92.235 is the reason. dunno who|what capstonecomm.com is|are but it's there server... however, does anybody has the right to blacklist this ip for a while on the listserver? marcus vito huang schrieb: what's wrong with the mailing system, it looks like in a loop of the mailling program. is it been hacked? On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Florian Philipp schrieb: On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 04:40:33 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (List Server) wrote: Am I the only one who gets a lot of these messages today? me too -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-performance] Illegal IMail List Server Command!
* List Server [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list hmm, maybe some accidently redirected the list to the listbot ? cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] unsubscribe
-- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-performance] a
unsubscribe -- gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
