Re: Update duplicity
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 07:35:13 PM Andreas Moog wrote: > On 03.03.2012 19:18, Dan Lange wrote: > > v0.6.17 was released three months ago but Ubuntu hasn't updated their > > packages for 11.10 (oneiric). Is there something blocking this or has > > Duplicity slipped through the cracks? > > We generally do not package new upstream versions for previous releases > of Ubuntu due to the risk of introducing regressions. If there is a > particular bug you like to get fixed, have a look at the Stable Release > Upgrade procedure outlined at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates Precise does have 0.6.17, so you'll see it in 12.04. If you'd like to see the package as a whole for 11.10, backports is what you should be looking into: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Update duplicity
On 03.03.2012 19:18, Dan Lange wrote: > v0.6.17 was released three months ago but Ubuntu hasn't updated their > packages for 11.10 (oneiric). Is there something blocking this or has > Duplicity slipped through the cracks? We generally do not package new upstream versions for previous releases of Ubuntu due to the risk of introducing regressions. If there is a particular bug you like to get fixed, have a look at the Stable Release Upgrade procedure outlined at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Update duplicity
v0.6.17 was released three months ago but Ubuntu hasn't updated their packages for 11.10 (oneiric). Is there something blocking this or has Duplicity slipped through the cracks? 0.6.17 fixes some critical bugs and I'd much rather stick to the built-in packages over maintaining my own packages. I just noticed 0.6.18 was released on Feb 29th. Perhaps you can skip right over 0.6.17 and use 0.6.18? Thanks, Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: zram swap on Desktop
On 03/03/2012 12:05 AM, Phillip Susi wrote: On 02/27/2012 08:58 PM, John Moser wrote: I believe that swap space is only actually freed when the memory it is backing is freed. In other words, if the process frees the memory, the swap is freed, but when the page is read back in from swap, it is left in swap so that the page can be discarded again in the future without having to write it back out again. This can lead to some wasted memory by having pages still in zswap that have also been moved back into regular ram. This may be true. Also zswap seems to not bother compacting until it's being added to, so it bloats and then doesn't shrink much. For example you can put 500MB into zswap at 29% compression ratio and 30% total memory usage, free 200MB and have it stay at 29% compression ratio with the actual data 70MB smaller ... but around 40% total memory usage because you only saved 20MB of RAM, as fragmentation left a lot of empty space in the zswap in pages that also contain in-use compressed data. It doesn't background compact. - Desktops may benefit by eschewing physical swap for RAM * But this breaks suspend-to-disk; then again, so does everything: + Who has a 16GB swap partition? Many people have 4GB, 8GB, 16GB RAM + The moment RAM + SWAP - CACHE > TOTAL_SWAP, suspend to disk breaks Cache can be discarded at hibernate time, so you only need RAM + SWAP. Also people generally don't go to hibernate while that much ram is in use, and almost never have much swap used. Also, I *think* I saw a patch somewhere recently to address this by avoiding the zswap device for hibernation and falling back to other swaps instead. Well I mean I shut off my VMs and all. A quick glance and some math at top tells me right now I'm using 2.3GB ... and there's nothing I'd want to close if I decided to hibernate my computer for the night. Closing down programs sort of defeats the purpose. Maybe LibreOffice. It looks like CleanCache/CompCache is a better solution since it avoids the step of emulating a block device. zcache on cleancache is just for compressing page cache (file backed), not swap (anonymous). zcache on freeswap is the solution for compressing swap without a block device, also written by the zram guy, not sure how to configure it though. CleanCache and zcache are in 3.2 staging, freeswap is not. For what it's worth I'm running both zram swap and CleanCache zcache in tandem; one does not affect the other. I've tested this running Ubuntu 11.10 at 288MB of RAM, which is painful; it's crippling MUCH faster without zcache enabled. http://i.imgur.com/aAeSE.png All of the above is swap on zram, no disk backed device. With zcache enabled and two CPUs (kswapd uses 60%-70% CPU like this!) I can get this far with about 20-25MB of page cache, and then I can still raise and lower Firefox and open a new tab in gnome-terminal to run killall on Firefox (attempting to close Firefox was taking too long for dialog boxes to load and draw--it annoyed me). I'm pretty sure zram will be superceded by zcache on freeswap. zcache is a tmem backend, freeswap and CleanCache are freemem frontends. Any backend can be used on any frontend, so when (if) the freeswap frontend goes into mainline zcache will load onto that. zcache is zram, it uses zram's xvmalloc when running on freeswap (uses a different allocator on page cache) and everything, it's even written by the same guy. zcache is just zram ported to tmem, which makes it both the same and separate--it is zram, but it's not zram. As tmem looks like the way the kernel is moving in the future, zram will probably go away--the appropriate compressed in-memory file system is tmpfs with zswap, as RAM used to back tmpfs can be swapped and thus zcache and zram will both act to compress tmpfs, so zram's usefulness as a block device in RAM that can house a compressed file system is limited. Of course, that theory then raises the question: what about when you don't have swap? Does the kernel make its swapping decisions and then ask freeswap if it's got something to do with this memory when you don't actually have any swap space? (i.e. attempting to swap without swap) Anyway in the end I feel the situation boils down to this: You get an Intel CPU these days and it comes with 6 cores. What do you do with 6 cores? You run some pretty extreme applications. What does your average desktop do with 6 cores with hyperthreading enabled running 12 way SMP? It uses 1-2 cores ... what do you do with the other 10? Run compression/decompression and compact fragmented compressed swap, what else? On something like i.e. the XO laptop where RAM is limited, it's simply a necessity*. On a desktop with a smaller RAM space and a slower CPU, it's a livable trade-off that does enhance performance some (it's a godsend on a dual core with just 512MB RAM trying to run Unity). *I believe the use is different on a sy
Re: cpufreqd as standard install?
On 03/03/2012 12:13 AM, Phillip Susi wrote: On 02/29/2012 04:40 PM, John Moser wrote: At full load (encoding a video), it eventually reaches 80C and the system shuts down. It sounds like you have some broken hardware. The stock heatsink and fan are designed to keep the cpu from overheating under full load at the design frequency and voltage. You might want to verify that your motherboard is driving the cpu at the correct frequency and voltage. Possibly. The only other use case I can think of is when ambient temperature is hot. Remember server rooms use air conditioning; I did find that for a while my machine would quickly overheat if the room temperature was above 79F, and so kept the room at 75F. The heat sink was completely clogged with dust at the time, though, which is why I recently cleaned and inspected it and checked all the fan speed monitors and motherboard settings to make sure everything was running as appropriate. In any case if the A/C goes down in a server room, it would be nice to have the system CPU frequency scaling kick in and take the clock speed down before the chip overheats. Modern servers--for example, the new revision of the Dell PowerEdge II and III as per 4 or 5 years ago--lean on their low-power capabilities, and modern data centers use a centralized DC converter and high voltage (220V) DC mains in the data center to reduce power waste because of the high cost of electricity. It's extremely likely that said servers would provide a low enough clock speed to not overheat without air conditioning, which is an emergency situation. Of course, the side benefit of not overheating desktops with inadequate cooling or faulty motherboard behavior is simply a bonus. Still, I believe in fault tolerance. I currently have cpufreqd configured to clock to 1.8GHz at 73C, and move to the ondemand governor at 70C. This need for manual configuring is a good reason why it is not a candidate for standard install. I've attached a configuration that generically uses sensors (i.e. if the program 'sensors' gives useful output, this works). It's just one core though (a multi-core system reads the same temperature for them all, as it's per-CPU); you can easily automatically generate this. Mind you on the topic of automatic generation, 80C is a hard limit. It just is. My machine reports (through sensors) +95.0C as "Critical", but my BIOS shuts down the system at +80.0C immediately. Silicon physically does not tolerate temperatures above 80.0C well at all; if a chip claims it can run at 95.0C it's lying. Even SOD-CMOS doesn't tolerate those temperatures. As well, again, you could write some generic profiles that detect when the system is running on battery (UPS, laptop) and make appreciable adjustments based on how much battery life is left. At 73C, the system switches from 1.9GHz to 1.8GHz. Ten seconds later, it's at 70C and switches back to 1.9GHz. 41 seconds after that, it reaches 73C again and switches to 1.8GHz. That means at stock frequency (1.9GHz) with stock cooling equipment, the CPU overheats under full load. Clocked 0.1GHz slower than its rated speed, it rapidly cools. Which is ridiculous; who designed this thing? This sounds like your motherboard is overvolting the cpu in that 1.9 GHz stepping. Possibly, but the settings are all default, nothing set to overclock (it has jumper free overclocking configuration, but the option "Standard" is default for clock rate and voltage settings, which I assume the CPU supplies). Basically the argument here is between "Supply fault tolerance" and "Well your motherboard is [old|poorly designed] so buy a new one." That's an excellent argument for hard drives (I have, in fact, suggested in the past that Ubuntu monitor hard disks for behavior indicative of dying drives--SMART errors, IDE RESET commands because the drive hangs, etc--and begin annoying the user with messages about the SEVERE risk of extreme data loss if he doesn't back up his data), but really if my mobo/CPU is aging and the CPU runs a little hot I'm not going to cry when the CPU suddenly burns out and my machine shuts down. I'll be confused, annoyed, but I'll buy a new one--I might buy an entire new computer, unaware that just my CPU is broken, and shove the hard drive in there. So there's no harm in allowing the user's hardware to go ahead and burn itself out if you think that's what's going on here. By all means that doesn't mean you can't have a diagnostic center somewhere that the user can review and see the whole collection. "Ethernet: Lots of garbage [Possibly: Faulty switch, faulty NIC, another computer with a chattering NIC spewing packets]." "CPU: Overheats under high CPU load [Possibly: Dust-clogged CPU heat sink, failing CPU fan, overclocking, failing CPU, failing motherboard voltage regulators, buggy motherboard BIOS]." "/!\ Hard drive: Freezes and needs IDE Resets [Possibly
