[Bug 989279] Re: Ubiquity fails to create encrypted home directory when no swap if configured
The big warning says nothing about ecryptfs problems, so your reasoning is false. Anyway, this warning has been there like forever and the described problem appeared in this very version. It also affects current users (like me) with plenty of RAM, who know very well that upgrading Ubuntu is asking for problems and want to clean install a new version, while keeping their encrypted home intact. It's the first time since I can remember that it doesn't work. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/989279 Title: Ubiquity fails to create encrypted home directory when no swap if configured To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/989279/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 654764] Re: writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive
You're right, tmpfs with ecryptfs is as slow as my SSD when it comes to writing... Hopefully it can be improved -- writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/654764 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 654764] Re: writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive
Strange, I've always thought I'm limited by the disk performance...Althought my tests seemed to be curbed at a certain level, I hoped it was just a bug, not a limitation. Is there any documentation for eCryptfs regarding its read/write performance limits? Or it's just typical for encrypted filesystems? Thanks for looking into this issue. -- writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/654764 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 654764] Re: writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive
That may be the case, hopefully Tyler will comment on that. More speed tests of this drive can be found here: http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_2_review_120gb -- writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/654764 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 654764] Re: writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted parition on the same drive
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/654764/+attachment/1671897/+files/Dependencies.txt ** Summary changed: - writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted parition on the same drive + writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive ** Description changed: Binary package hint: ecryptfs-utils I've been using ecryptfs from the very introduction in Ubuntu. Recently I installed Maverick RC on a brand new SSD drive (120GB - OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G) with home encrypted with ecryptfs - as usual. I felt something was wrong with the overall speed and I did some testing and it seems to me something is wrong with the performance of ecryptfs, here are some tests - the speed is quite similar to real life writing (I moved a lot of data to this partition). - The drive has been secure erased, partition properly aligned, trim + The drive has been secure erased, partitions properly aligned, trim enabled in fstab test in encrypted ~ time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 51.601 s, 19.8 MB/s real 0m51.605s user 0m0.280s sys 0m49.400s -- test in unencrypted /tmp (same hdd, different partition) 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 3.6165 s, 283 MB/s real 0m3.686s user 0m0.190s sys 0m2.910s - Clearly there is a 14 times speed difference, which in my opinion + Clearly there is a 14 times speed difference. - - For comparison, here is the same test done in Lucid on a 3-year old 5400RPM drive, same machine, 32-bit install. + For comparison, here is the same test done in Lucid on a 3-year old + 5400RPM drive, same machine, 32-bit install. - test in encrypted ~ time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 89.7334 s, 11.4 MB/s real1m29.739s user0m0.248s sys 0m58.100s test in unencrypted /tmp (same hdd, different partition) time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 47.7698 s, 21.4 MB/s real0m48.069s user0m0.240s sys 0m4.444s - So, my new SSD drive is 13 times faster on unencrypted partition and not even 2 times faster on encryptfs one. I report it as bug, because it surely looks like one. If you want me to do any other tests, I'll be happy to help ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10 Package: ecryptfs-utils 83-0ubuntu3 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic 2.6.35.4 Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic x86_64 Architecture: amd64 Date: Mon Oct 4 20:33:05 2010 EcryptfsInUse: Yes InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release Candidate amd64 (20100928) ProcEnviron: - LANG=en_US.UTF-8 - SHELL=/bin/bash + LANG=en_US.UTF-8 + SHELL=/bin/bash SourcePackage: ecryptfs-utils ** Description changed: Binary package hint: ecryptfs-utils I've been using ecryptfs from the very introduction in Ubuntu. Recently I installed Maverick RC on a brand new SSD drive (120GB - OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G) with home encrypted with ecryptfs - as usual. I felt something was wrong with the overall speed and I did some testing and it seems to me something is wrong with the performance of ecryptfs, here are some tests - the speed is quite similar to real life writing (I moved a lot of data to this partition). The drive has been secure erased, partitions properly aligned, trim enabled in fstab test in encrypted ~ time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 51.601 s, 19.8 MB/s real 0m51.605s user 0m0.280s sys 0m49.400s -- test in unencrypted /tmp (same hdd, different partition) 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 3.6165 s, 283 MB/s real 0m3.686s user 0m0.190s sys 0m2.910s - Clearly there is a 14 times speed difference. + Clearly there is a 14 times speed difference. Please note, that I copied + real-life data to this partition and speed never exceeded 33MB/s with + both code repositories (lots of tiny files) and virtual machines (>2GB + files) For comparison, here is the same test done in Lucid on a 3-year old 5400RPM drive, same machine, 32-bit install. - test in encrypted ~ time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=1
[Bug 654764] [NEW] writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: ecryptfs-utils I've been using ecryptfs from the very introduction in Ubuntu. Recently I installed Maverick RC on a brand new SSD drive (120GB - OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G) with home encrypted with ecryptfs - as usual. I felt something was wrong with the overall speed and I did some testing and it seems to me something is wrong with the performance of ecryptfs, here are some tests - the speed is quite similar to real life writing (I moved a lot of data to this partition). The drive has been secure erased, partitions properly aligned, trim enabled in fstab test in encrypted ~ time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 51.601 s, 19.8 MB/s real0m51.605s user0m0.280s sys 0m49.400s -- test in unencrypted /tmp (same hdd, different partition) 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 3.6165 s, 283 MB/s real0m3.686s user0m0.190s sys 0m2.910s Clearly there is a 14 times speed difference. Please note, that I copied real-life data to this partition and speed never exceeded 33MB/s with both code repositories (lots of tiny files) and virtual machines (>2GB files) For comparison, here is the same test done in Lucid on a 3-year old 5400RPM drive, same machine, 32-bit install. - test in encrypted ~ time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 89.7334 s, 11.4 MB/s real1m29.739s user0m0.248s sys 0m58.100s test in unencrypted /tmp (same hdd, different partition) time dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1024 count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 47.7698 s, 21.4 MB/s real0m48.069s user0m0.240s sys 0m4.444s - So, my new SSD drive is 13 times faster on unencrypted partition and not even 2 times faster on encryptfs one. I report it as bug, because it surely looks like one. If you want me to do any other tests, I'll be happy to help ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10 Package: ecryptfs-utils 83-0ubuntu3 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic 2.6.35.4 Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic x86_64 Architecture: amd64 Date: Mon Oct 4 20:33:05 2010 EcryptfsInUse: Yes InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release Candidate amd64 (20100928) ProcEnviron: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash SourcePackage: ecryptfs-utils ** Affects: ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: amd64 ecryptfs maverick ssd -- writing to ecryptfs partition on SSD drive is many times slower than writing to unencrypted partition on the same drive https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/654764 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 455969] Re: reading database slow since upgrading to karmic
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 398870 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/398870 I for one do not use any encryption on my root partition, so I don't think it's encryption related issue... -- reading database slow since upgrading to karmic https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455969 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 398870] Re: "Reading Database" takes too long
You mean OS upgrades or package upgrades? Still, it feels like a regression in Karmic, because I cannot recall anything like this since I've been running Feisty on this machine. -- "Reading Database" takes too long https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/398870 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 455969] Re: reading database slow since upgrading to karmic
Same with a clean install. I installed beta when it came out and "Reading database..." was painfully slow since the very beginning. I've never seen something like this in any previous ubuntu incarnation. -- reading database slow since upgrading to karmic https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/455969 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 448628] Re: text-mode tty displays garbage
I've just upgraded and it works for me too. -- text-mode tty displays garbage https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/448628 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 448628] Re: text-mode tty displays garbage
I checked previous kernel versions too (e.g. the one that came with beta and definitely worked), but there was no difference. -- text-mode tty displays garbage https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/448628 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 448628] Re: text-mode tty displays garbage
I'm 100% positive that it worked around 5 days ago and earlier (I installed beta shortly after it was released), because I used tty a lot during that period. I downgraded xserver-xorg-video-ati but it didn't help, so maybe it is some other X-releated package that broke tty and general visual experience? I remember there were some other packages in the said upgrade queue (mesa?) -- text-mode tty displays garbage https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/448628 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 296877] Re: clock applet resizes strangely when location time string is too long
If it is public, could you paste this bug URL? Thanks -- clock applet resizes strangely when location time string is too long https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/296877 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 296877] Re: clock applet resizes strangely when location time string is too long
** Attachment added: "screenshot.jpg" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/19571624/screenshot.jpg -- clock applet resizes strangely when location time string is too long https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/296877 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 296877] [NEW] clock applet resizes strangely when location time string is too long
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: gnome-panel It's a very minor issue, but it may be a bit annoying in some special cases. When a location time information string is long enough the "Set..." button, that appears after a mouse moves over this location, causes the whole applet width to increase and part of the applet becomes hidden "behind" the right side of the screen. Please see the attached image for details. Package version: 2.24.1-0ubuntu2.1 I can't remember now if it worked correctly on Hardy.. ** Affects: gnome-panel (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: Invalid -- clock applet resizes strangely when location time string is too long https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/296877 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 214496] Re: postgresql isnt shown in "Services Settings"
Any chance to get this one fixed? It looks trivial... It appears to be exactly
what Carlos suggested in his last comment - a missing line in
gnome-system-tools/src/common/gst-service-role.c right below
{ "postgresql-8.2", GST_ROLE_DATABASE_SERVER },
I haven't tried that, but that's the only reference to postgresql in the
package source...
--
postgresql isnt shown in "Services Settings"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/214496
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 272292] Re: [Intrepid] No on-screen display for volume or brightness control on Thinkpad T60
Sorry, the "volume up" key works OK, only "volume down" stops the playing stream. -- [Intrepid] No on-screen display for volume or brightness control on Thinkpad T60 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272292 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 272292] Re: [Intrepid] No on-screen display for volume or brightness control on Thinkpad T60
I confirm what Jonathan reported - on Thinkpad T60 - it worked fine a few days ago... Also, a recent update (probably Oct. 24th) broke the sound keys again...Now, OSD for the volume down/up keys works, but pushing these keys not only changes the sound volume, but also stops a playing stream in totem! I'm 100% sure it worked ok before, because I listen to the streams everyday and use those keys when the phone rings etc. Additionally, the third button - "sound off" key - locks the screen now (same as System->Lock Screen). When I push it, screen locks and the window to input a password shows immediatelly...It also worked before, just OSD was gone. -- [Intrepid] No on-screen display for volume or brightness control on Thinkpad T60 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272292 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 268345] Re: [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers"
OK, I have waited a bit longer this time. I've not been able to reproduce this bug since about Oct. 19th. (I upgrade my system on a daily basis). I booted/restarted my laptop (T60/x1400) at least 15-20 times since then and each boot was successful. Maybe this time it's gone for good? -- [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/268345 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 268345] Re: [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers"
Oops, I retract my last comment - got to reboot 3 times today to pass this "Loading hardware..." point... -- [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/268345 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 268345] Re: [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers"
I could not reproduce this bug today - I tried several times and the boot process did not freeze once. Could this be some 13th/14th update that fixed it? Hope so (byt also wondering which one was it, if that's the case) -- [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/268345 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 272292] Re: [Intrepid] No on-screen display for volume or brightness control on Thinkpad T60
Well, my case is an opposite to the one reported by wolfie2x. I have a Thinkpad T60 and brightness OSD works fine, no OSD for volume keys though (worked fine on hardy), but the keys do the job, so it's only OSD issue... -- [Intrepid] No on-screen display for volume or brightness control on Thinkpad T60 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272292 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 268345] Re: [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers"
I can confirm this bug on T60 (ati x1400). I upgraded to intrepid shortly after the beta came out (and network issues were resolved) and booting has been failing since then (system up-to-date). It usually worked after I powered it off and tried again, but now it stops more often - ALWAYS at 'Loading hardware drivers', the hdd goes totally silent and the system stops responding to the keyboard input. Now it boots every nth time and works without any problems, but I can't reproduce a success booting procedure - sometimes it just boots after nth shutdown (using power button), sometimes it boots after some activity (memtest, live cd etc). -- [Intrepid] Start up blocked on "Loading hardware drivers" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/268345 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 61848] Re: [edgy] kernel panic after last update
Yep, same here. Actually, in my case "acpi=force" is enough to boot.. -- [edgy] kernel panic after last update https://launchpad.net/bugs/61848 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 61848] Re: [edgy] kernel panic after last update
Yeah, I'm wondering too, what should be done, to make this BUG confirmed and fixed... -- [edgy] kernel panic after last update https://launchpad.net/bugs/61848 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 61848] Re: [edgy] kernel panic after last update
@NoWhereMan I finally tried your options, that is "pnpbios=off acpi=force" It works :) I'm running the latest kernel now, that is -10.30 and it boots wothout problems. I also tried adding only "acpi=force" and it boots as well. But in my opinion it's still broken. I wouldn't expect any newbie editing his grub menu.lst... I'm adding my kernel panic screenshot, because it looks a bit different than the ones seen here. I hope it will help somehow. Thanks ** Attachment added: "Screenshot" http://librarian.launchpad.net/4791597/DSCN3528.JPG -- [edgy] kernel panic after last update https://launchpad.net/bugs/61848 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 61848] Re: [edgy] kernel panic after last update
I have similar problems as Martin above. After I switched to edgy beta, none of the 2.6.17 kernels worked for me (including -10). Kernel panic each time, with things like pci_write and some 'acpi read' stuff at the end. I'm using amd athlon 2500, abit kv7 motherboard, ati 9500 2.6.15-27-k7 works fine for me (shutdown is not complete though, worked fine with some older 2.6.15 kernels in dapper) -- [edgy] kernel panic after last update https://launchpad.net/bugs/61848 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
