This bug affects 12.04 (precise) too.
Any chance the Courier-IMAP 4.9.3 diff can be applied to the Ubuntu
release to fix this bug?
From: http://www.courier-mta.org/imap/changelog.html
--
4.9.3
2011-05-22 Sam Varshavchik mr...@courier-mta.com
* msgenvelope.c
Hi,
I agree that it is not file system specific as I was testing against the block
device:
dd if=/dev/cciss/c0d1 of=/dev/null bs=1024k count=1024
Furthermore, the cciss driver (which this bug is about) will not be used
by Linux when running on ESX. Changing the Linux kernel version will not
This performance regression saga continues
I installed Ubuntu Lucid Lynx rc2 which is based on 2.6.32-something.
The performance is as expected (89/90MB/s) doing my simple dd test.
I downloaded 2.6.32.7 from kernel.org and compiled a kernel using the
Ubuntu config file as a starting point
Hi,
For me, this bug relates specifically to a performance regression
between 2.6.28 and 2.6.29.
The E200i is an entry level controller. Unless you have the battery
backed write cache (BBWC) enabler installed you will see poor write
performance. The read performance on the E200i is not brilliant
Maxym,
still awaiting a resolution from HP I'm afraid.
My thoughts remain as I previously posted on the kernel.org bug posting:
Anyone using a Smart Array controller should, in my opinion, do thorough
testing prior to using a 2.6.29 or more recent kernel for production work
loads. At a minimum
Hi,
I have seen this too using custom kernels on Hardy and on the current RC
of Karmic Koala. The performance regression I have seen using the
standard Linux CCISS kernel driver is a drop of about 66% performance.
The performance regression was introduced in 2.6.29-rc1 and is in
current kernels
** Tags added: karmic
** Tags added: cciss performance regression-potential
** Tags added: hp
** Tags removed: regression-potential
--
HP cciss / SmartArray responding slowly
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/337419
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
--
HP cciss / SmartArray responding slowly
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/337419
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
dmesg from karmic on DL380g5 that showed the slower performance
** Also affects: linux via
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13127
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
** Attachment added: dmesg.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/34252609/dmesg.log
--
HP cciss /
uname -a from karmic on DL380g5 that showed the slower performance
** Attachment added: uname-a.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/34252649/uname-a.log
--
HP cciss / SmartArray responding slowly
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/337419
You received this bug notification because you are a member
lspci -vvnn from karmic on DL380g5 that showed the slower performance
** Attachment added: lspci-vvnn.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/34252633/lspci-vvnn.log
--
HP cciss / SmartArray responding slowly
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/337419
You received this bug notification because you are
# cat /proc/driver/cciss/cciss0
cciss0: HP Smart Array P400 Controller
Board ID: 0x3234103c
Firmware Version: 5.20
IRQ: 37
Logical drives: 2
Current Q depth: 0
Current # commands on controller: 0
Max Q depth since init: 5
Max # commands on controller since init: 159
Max SG entries since init: 31
/proc/version_ginature from karmic on DL380g5 that showed the slower
performance
** Attachment added: version.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/34252678/version.log
--
HP cciss / SmartArray responding slowly
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/337419
You received this bug notification because
Thanks for the reply. I have nominated the fix for Intrepid, it's kind
of a showstopper at work :)
--
/usr/lib/cups/filter/foomatic-rip failed with Ricoh network printer
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/300135
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Public bug reported:
This bug is very similar to https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241979
When trying to print anything to my Ricoh network printer, the job fails
with the message /usr/lib/cups/filter/foomatic-rip failed. With the
exact same printer and printer settings, printing worked fine on
I should also add that in https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241979 the
problem was fixed in the package foomatic-filters -
4.0.0~bzr148-0ubuntu1 while I have foomatic-filters -
4.0.0~bzr177-0ubuntu1 installed.
--
/usr/lib/cups/filter/foomatic-rip failed with Ricoh network printer
** Attachment added: Output from the printing troubleshooting wizard.
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/19799380/troubleshoot.txt
--
/usr/lib/cups/filter/foomatic-rip failed with Ricoh network printer
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/300135
You received this bug notification because you are a
Hi,
Something similar is also happening to me on Dapper LTS 6.06.2 with
Kernel 2.6.15-52-amd64-server.
I do not have a way of reproducing this at will.
In summary, I have the primary volume (u01) of 450GB sitting in a VG
using a PV on /dev/cciss_c0d1p1, so no mdraid or other layering.
Creating
Hi,
I have also encountered this problem. the busybox wget works against an
apt-cacher via apache but not directly against the apt-cache daemon. I'm
not sure what the root cause of this is and if it is due to the busybox
wget not including a complete HTTP request header or if its a bug in
Removing the keyboard shortcut is not a solution. If the keyboard
shortcut was the root problem then Control+Page_Up would also be
broken in the same way.
On my Gentoo system, both keyboard shortcuts are still intact and
switching between VIM tabs has always worked correctly.
--
Gnome Terminal
I have noticed the same thing and it is frustrating.
If it helps any, using the PageDown key on the number pad works.
--
Gnome Terminal in Hardy does not pass Control-PageDown key
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/208291
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
I tested again with Centos 5.1 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1). The
problem does not exist there. So this definitely seems to be an Ubuntu
specific problem.
--
Hardy kernel: single thread performance on dual core much worse than with
maxcpus=1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212201
You received
** Attachment added: uname-a.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/13143971/uname-a.log
--
Hardy kernel: single thread performance on dual core much worse than with
maxcpus=1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212201
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
** Attachment added: lspci-vvnn.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/13143977/lspci-vvnn.log
--
Hardy kernel: single thread performance on dual core much worse than with
maxcpus=1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212201
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
** Attachment added: dmidecode.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/13143978/dmidecode.log
--
Hardy kernel: single thread performance on dual core much worse than with
maxcpus=1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212201
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
** Attachment added: dmesg.log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/13143980/dmesg.log
--
Hardy kernel: single thread performance on dual core much worse than with
maxcpus=1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212201
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Attached are the results of an mprime benchmark run (Option 19 at the mprime
menu).
First run with maxcups=1 at the grub boot menu.
Second run without any additional boot options.
Third run without any additional boot options, but with two instances of mprime
running simultaniously.
**
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: linux-image-2.6.24-15-generic
On Ubuntu 8.04 Beta 32 bit (with current updates) the generic, as well
as the server kernel image shows on my machine a very serious
performance bug: a single thread application needs approximately 50%
more time to execute
additional information:
1) the E6600 is a first generation Core 2 Duo processor. It is not able
to increase the clock, if only one core is used.
2) there seems to be no thermal problem: the case is really well cooled
and there used to be a thermaltake typhoon sitting on the CPU, now it is
an
29 matches
Mail list logo
