Thank You for Your time and answer again, Martin:
>> I do this w/ mc.
>>
>> But w/ dd it is the same.
>
>Also with bs=1M?
Yes.
>> No. 2.5", 5400 RPM - still I do not believe it can be satisfiable
>> performance for the drive.
>
>Oh, I do. I do not see more than 3 blocks in vmstat 1 on IDE
>
Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
>> Seems it's the same as FS checking at boot time, isn't?
>
>Should be. Did it say that it actually *fixed* problems?
Was dumb. But the error gone from dmesg.
>To make sure, you can try fsck.ext4 -fn from a livecd. It should not
>find any problems any
Am Montag, 17. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
> >How do you copy the file? Maybe the method you use for copying uses
> >small buffers and thus needlessly generated disk seeks. You might try
> >using dd with bs=1M ;).
>
> I do this w/ mc.
>
> But w/ d
Am Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2011 schrieb Camaleón:
> > I would say it was the first time. Rather weird remounts accur at boot:
> >
> >
> > [ 11.010837] EXT4-fs (sda2): re-mounted. Opts: errors=remount-ro
> > [ 19.630649] EXT4-fs (dm-0): mounted filesystem with ordered data
> > mode. Opts: errors
Am Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> >You need to run fsck from a live distribution. Go to grml.org, dd the
> >suitable GRML iso image to an empty (!) USB stick or one with
> >disposable data, boot this and try fsck from there without mounting
> >the partition. If it says clean, use
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>> I'd say those are normal entries for an ext4 filesystem if they
>> occur at booting (for fsck tasks) and not once the system is loaded.
Thanks - this important to me.
>Ah, I forgot to ask... are you using DM (device mapper)? If yes, why?
>Unless
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:19:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:23:59 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
(..)
>> [ 82.183242] EXT4-fs (sda2): re-mounted. Opts:
>> errors=remount-ro,commit=0
>>
>> [ 84.304981] EXT4-fs (dm-0): re-mounted. Opts:
>> errors=remount-ro,commit=0
>
> I'd say tho
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:23:59 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0&hl=en#q=debian+MP-BIOS+bug:+8254+timer+not+connected+to+IO-APIC&hl=en&tbo=1&complete=0&prmd=imvns&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=2RKbTrePHMfAswbhocmUBA&ved=0CAkQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bd638b
Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
>> Seems weird - why it is being REmounted instead of just being
>> mounted?
>
>Did you try to run fsck while the filesystem was mounted??? AFAIK it
>then resorts to read only mount and only checks the filesystem and
>this isn´t a safe result in all case
Am Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
> >Ok, before doing anything else try to repair your Ext4 filesystem:
> >
> >[ 154.732424] composite sync not supported
> >[ 299.358408] composite sync not supported
> >[ 304.096062] EXT4-fs (sda2): er
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>It's pretty usual to see older machines last more than the new ones ;-)
Yea, and better supported in Linux! :o)
>>>http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0&hl=en#q=debian+MP-BIOS+bug:+8254
>+timer+not+connected+to+IO-
>APIC&hl=en&tbo=1&complete=0&prmd
Forgot to answer:
>Is sda2 the partition you are doing the copy on?
Yes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e9d25e7.0c18cd0a.2b1e.1...@mx.google.com
Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
>Ok, before doing anything else try to repair your Ext4 filesystem:
>
>[ 154.732424] composite sync not supported
>[ 299.358408] composite sync not supported
>[ 304.096062] EXT4-fs (sda2): error count: 15
>[ 304.096073] EXT4-fs (sda2): initial error
Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
>How do you copy the file? Maybe the method you use for copying uses
>small buffers and thus needlessly generated disk seeks. You might try
>using dd with bs=1M ;).
I do this w/ mc.
But w/ dd it is the same.
>> I ran OpenArena that freezed from time t
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:00:26 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>
>>> For system that I'm speaking now is a Dell's laptop w/ AMD Tutorion64
>>> 2.4 GHz, 2G RAM, w/ Hitachi SATA 750G in it.
>>
>>If memory serves me right, Turion64 sounds like an "old" CPU, righ
Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
> >Huh? Well compared to SSD they are dog slow with small size random
> >read/write operations - typical refered to as IOPS - but I cannot
> >confirm that they are slower than PATA drives. They might not b
Am Montag, 17. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
> >> For system that I'm speaking now is a Dell's laptop w/ AMD
> >> Tutorion64 2.4 GHz, 2G RAM, w/ Hitachi SATA 750G in it.
> >
> >If memory serves me right, Turion64 sounds like an "old" CPU, right?
> >
Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
> >There has been significant improvements with recent kernels. After
> >installing 2.6.37 - AFAIR - on my ThinkPad T42 which uses Ext4 I
> >actually thought I bought a new notebook. And there have been
>
Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
> >Thats a typical workload where certain kernels have lots of problems
> >with interactivity. I think its best to use at least kernel 2.6.37. At
> >some kernel version CFQ gained a low_latency mode which
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>> For system that I'm speaking now is a Dell's laptop w/ AMD Tutorion64
>> 2.4 GHz, 2G RAM, w/ Hitachi SATA 750G in it.
>
>If memory serves me right, Turion64 sounds like an "old" CPU, right?
>
>("old" for today CPU's rhythms of life means a mactufact
Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
>There has been significant improvements with recent kernels. After
>installing 2.6.37 - AFAIR - on my ThinkPad T42 which uses Ext4 I
>actually thought I bought a new notebook. And there have been
>improvements after that version as well.
>
>So it might
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:59:52 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
>>So, what kind of applications are you running on your system and over
>>what hardware?
>
> For system that I'm speaking now is a Dell's laptop w/ AMD Tutorion64
> 2.4 GHz, 2G RAM, w/ Hitachi SATA 750G in it.
If memory serves me right, Turion
Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
>Thats a typical workload where certain kernels have lots of problems
>with interactivity. I think its best to use at least kernel 2.6.37. At
>some kernel version CFQ gained a low_latency mode which is enabled by
>default. Best would probably be to updat
Thank You for Your time and answer, Martin:
>Huh? Well compared to SSD they are dog slow with small size random
>read/write operations - typical refered to as IOPS - but I cannot
>confirm that they are slower than PATA drives. They might not be that
>much faster, but thats IMHO more a question of
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>On standard systems setups (where hdds are connected directly to the
>sata controller of the board) and non-complex layouts (non-raid/lvm/
>clusters...) I've never experienced freezes nor delays with sata nor
>ide hard disks. Not "visible" delays, I m
Am Samstag, 15. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> >> My question is, Whether I can make any adjustments as to FS mount
> >> options, kernel parameters, etc?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The idea is, If it works extremely slow - to reduce its (the writing
> >> process or whatever related to it) priority or
Hi Sthu,
Am Samstag, 15. Oktober 2011 schrieb Sthu Deus:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Henrique:
> >Well, *any* issue with the disk subsystem will cause such problems to
> >get several orders of magnitude worse, so yes, one must *first* make
> >sure the disks are operating at the expected
Am Samstag, 15. Oktober 2011 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Camaleón wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:39:05 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I have terrible delays/freezes w/ any application whenever HDD (a
> > > SATA one) does its writing.
> >
> >
> >
> > That
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:02:45 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
>>Consider running a smartctl test on the disk, it can be dying or having
>>a severe hardware problem.
>
> I have run this way:
>
> smartctl --test=short /dev/sda
>
> in 2 minutes it completed and in its log (-l selftest /dev/sda) I saw
> its
Thank You for Your time and answer, Henrique:
>Well, *any* issue with the disk subsystem will cause such problems to
>get several orders of magnitude worse, so yes, one must *first* make
>sure the disks are operating at the expected speed.
How I can be sure the HDD is "operating at the expected s
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>> I have terrible delays/freezes w/ any application whenever HDD (a
>> SATA one) does its writing.
>
>That should not happen at all.
Agree, but...
>Consider running a smartctl test on the disk, it can be dying or
>having a severe hardware problem.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:39:05 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
>
> > I have terrible delays/freezes w/ any application whenever HDD (a SATA
> > one) does its writing.
>
> That should not happen at all.
But it does. The kernel default IO scheduler (CFQ) has serious i
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:39:05 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> I have terrible delays/freezes w/ any application whenever HDD (a SATA
> one) does its writing.
That should not happen at all.
Consider running a smartctl test on the disk, it can be dying or having a
severe hardware problem.
> My question
On 10/15/2011 12:39 AM, Sthu Deus wrote:
> Good time of the day.
>
> I have terrible delays/freezes w/ any application whenever HDD (a SATA
> one) does its writing.
>
> My question is, Whether I can make any adjustments as to FS mount
> options, kernel parameters, etc?
Please don't ask a perform
Good time of the day.
I have terrible delays/freezes w/ any application whenever HDD (a SATA
one) does its writing.
My question is, Whether I can make any adjustments as to FS mount
options, kernel parameters, etc?
The idea is, If it works extremely slow - to reduce its (the writing
process or w
35 matches
Mail list logo
