Re: [reiserfs-list] [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches + addon
Hi, On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:21:33 +0200 Manuel Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Have you ever considered to use lm_sensors? | > You need the latest kernel patch (2.6.4 CVS). | | I've tried it some months ago. After collecting all the needed things | and compiling over it didn't say more than my thermometer, IIRC one | veryfiably correct temperature value :-( | Then I tried to get this info from a program within Win98 and didn't | succeed, either. The first longer moment to think about cheap hardware... | | But maybe I should give it a new try ?! If you're using DELL PowerEdge and given the model version , you may be out of luck. >From dell ML : | lmsensors doesn't work with many PowerEdge servers, including the PE2400. | Instead we recommend using Dell OpenManage Server Administrator. | | Thanks, | Matt | | -- | Matt Domsch | Sr. Software Engineer | Dell Linux Solutions www.dell.com/linux Thanks, Philippe.
Re: [reiserfs-list] [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches + addon
On 07/09/2002 04:15 PM, Dieter Nützel wrote: > On Tuesday 9 June 2002 00:22, Manuel Krause wrote: > > [-] > >>The notebook now works like I bought it: fine, stable and the thermal >>(fan start/stop) patterns are quite well though I didn't replace the >>thermal pads between CPU&fan and the heatsink-to-graphix-and-chipset as >>always and everywhere recommended. (Oh, try to get these special parts >>once!!!) >>We had up to 35°C today here in Germany. That's a good restart! > > > You are not exaggerate? Aren't you? > Eastern German...;-) > I really took this black notebook outdoors for temperature stability testing. But I didn't place an external temp. sensor between keyboard and the chipsets heatsink, that's true... ;-) > We have ~30°C (shadow) and I have 26°C in my "working room", today here in > Hamburg, Northern Germany. Same on here now, but some clouds... > > Have you ever considered to use lm_sensors? > You need the latest kernel patch (2.6.4 CVS). I've tried it some months ago. After collecting all the needed things and compiling over it didn't say more than my thermometer, IIRC one veryfiably correct temperature value :-( Then I tried to get this info from a program within Win98 and didn't succeed, either. The first longer moment to think about cheap hardware... But maybe I should give it a new try ?! > > Regards, > Dieter > > BTW "Ich liebe die Ossies" ;-) > "Me too!" :-)) In 1994 I went from Goslar (Western Germany) to Ilmenau (Eastern Germany) to study mechanical engineering on a non-overcrowded university. The people are really o.k. here. Passing the last years through my mind it was a good choice and it's really nice and worth living here! Greetings, Manuel What about this funny sentence: "Ossis sind einfach die besseren Wessis." ? ;-)
Re: [reiserfs-list] [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches + addon
On Tuesday 9 June 2002 00:22, Manuel Krause wrote: [-] > The notebook now works like I bought it: fine, stable and the thermal > (fan start/stop) patterns are quite well though I didn't replace the > thermal pads between CPU&fan and the heatsink-to-graphix-and-chipset as > always and everywhere recommended. (Oh, try to get these special parts > once!!!) > We had up to 35°C today here in Germany. That's a good restart! You are not exaggerate? Aren't you? Eastern German...;-) We have ~30°C (shadow) and I have 26°C in my "working room", today here in Hamburg, Northern Germany. Have you ever considered to use lm_sensors? You need the latest kernel patch (2.6.4 CVS). My brand new dual Athlon MP 1900+, 1 GB DDR-SDRAM 266 CL2 is running even today sweet and "cool". SunWave1 /home/nuetzel# /usr/local/sbin/smartctl -a /dev/sda Device: IBM DDYS-T18350N Version: S96H Device supports S.M.A.R.T. and is Enabled Temperature Warning Disabled or Not Supported S.M.A.R.T. Sense: Okay! Current Drive Temperature: 33 C Drive Trip Temperature:85 C Current start stop count: 65678 times Recommended start stop count: 2555920 times SunWave1 /home/nuetzel# sensors eeprom-i2c-0-50 Adapter: SMBus AMD768 adapter at 06e0 Algorithm: Non-I2C SMBus adapter Memory type:SDRAM DIMM SPD SDRAM Size (MB):invalid 12 1 2 144 eeprom-i2c-0-51 Adapter: SMBus AMD768 adapter at 06e0 Algorithm: Non-I2C SMBus adapter w83627hf-isa-0290 Adapter: ISA adapter Algorithm: ISA algorithm VCore 1: +1.72 V (min = +4.08 V, max = +4.08 V) VCore 2: +2.49 V (min = +4.08 V, max = +4.08 V) +3.3V: +3.36 V (min = +3.13 V, max = +3.45 V) +5V: +4.94 V (min = +4.72 V, max = +5.24 V) +12V: +12.08 V (min = +10.79 V, max = +13.19 V) -12V: -12.70 V (min = -13.21 V, max = -10.90 V) -5V: -5.10 V (min = -5.26 V, max = -4.76 V) V5SB: +5.39 V (min = +4.72 V, max = +5.24 V) VBat: +3.42 V (min = +2.40 V, max = +3.60 V) U160:0 RPM (min = 3000 RPM, div = 2) CPU 0:4500 RPM (min = 3000 RPM, div = 2) CPU 1:4354 RPM (min = 3000 RPM, div = 2) System: +35.0°C (limit = +60°C, hysteresis = +50°C) sensor = thermistor CPU 1:+38.5°C (limit = +60°C, hysteresis = +50°C) sensor = 3904 transistor CPU 0:+40.5°C (limit = +60°C, hysteresis = +50°C) sensor = 3904 transistor vid: +18.50 V alarms: Chassis intrusion detection beep_enable: Sound alarm disabled Regards, Dieter BTW "Ich liebe die Ossies" ;-) -- Dieter Nützel Graduate Student, Computer Science University of Hamburg Department of Computer Science @home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [reiserfs-list] [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 17:27, Manuel Krause wrote:
>
> BTW, what is this "only" diff good for (is it worth to recompile, I mean):
> # diff '03-beta-data-logging-6.diff' '03-beta-data-logging-5.diff'
> 2777c2777
> < + if (SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_num_lists > 512) {
> ---
> > + if (SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_num_lists > 256) {
It is a performance tweak, my next patch removes that bit entirely.
Thanks to some hints from Andrew Morton I've been able to do many more
optimizations for high load fsync heavy applications. The new patch
will be out later tonight.
-chris
Re: [reiserfs-list] [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches
On 06/05/2002 11:13 PM, Manuel Krause wrote:
> On 06/04/2002 03:12 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 23:28, Manuel Krause wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So, VMware is stable with it, too, on my well known "heavy-private-test"
> >>of it (running Norton SpeedDisk at least twice within a most recent
> >>VMware Win98). It doesn't show greatly different timings than to my
> >>setup before though having a different disk i/o pattern (due to the
> >>missing aa patches)... and me having a reduced RAM from 512to256MB at
> >>the moment. And I should be honest to say I can't give exact timings as
> >>the important disk contents changed during last weeks. But the
> >>disk-access-times/related-to-the-content are definitively _not_ higher
> >>than before!
> >
> >
> > same speed on 1/2 the ram isn't bad ;-)
> >
> [...]
> Don't know where to reply best...
[...]
BTW, what is this "only" diff good for (is it worth to recompile, I mean):
# diff '03-beta-data-logging-6.diff' '03-beta-data-logging-5.diff'
2777c2777
< + if (SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_num_lists > 512) {
---
> + if (SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_num_lists > 256) {
Thank you,
Manuel
>
> I was extraordinary glad to see the explicit wording of the mounted
> partition in the logs we missed for so long time!
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Manuel
>
Re: [reiserfs-list] [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches
On 06/04/2002 03:12 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 23:28, Manuel Krause wrote: > > >>So, VMware is stable with it, too, on my well known "heavy-private-test" >>of it (running Norton SpeedDisk at least twice within a most recent >>VMware Win98). It doesn't show greatly different timings than to my >>setup before though having a different disk i/o pattern (due to the >>missing aa patches)... and me having a reduced RAM from 512to256MB at >>the moment. And I should be honest to say I can't give exact timings as >>the important disk contents changed during last weeks. But the >>disk-access-times/related-to-the-content are definitively _not_ higher >>than before! > > > same speed on 1/2 the ram isn't bad ;-) > [...] Don't know where to reply best... Hi, again! I want to make some more comments on my latest words. As I said I first used the data=journal mode and got nice timings. O.k. I really think after that "revision" my previous kernel setup wasn't that well configured as I thought and felt. Long time degression?! I really had the reiserfs messages in my logs that it explicitely used this mode. The only problem I obviously had, so far, was to distinguish the mount options at darkest night: data=logging is no mount-option but the description "data-logging", the mount option for it is data=journal -- Passing rootflags=data=journal in lilo.conf and data=logging in fstab results in an uncontrollable kernel ;-) Huh! Sorry, for my thoughtless testing. But my posted timings are quite relieble on here. Concerning VMware the "same speed on 1/2 RAM" results are even more impressing as VMware seems to buffer it's memory contents to /tmp/... fs again since I reduced the RAM. With 512MB it didn't seem to need this method usually. The data=ordered mode saves 1..2secs from of my previously posted load times for NS7 and OOo-1.0 and seems to be stable itself in "everydays usage" and for my VMware sessions, too. I didn't test the "crash->no-garbage-in-files" case and the more recent 03-beta-data-logging-6.diff, yet. I was extraordinary glad to see the explicit wording of the mounted partition in the logs we missed for so long time! Thanks for your help, Manuel
