I was using a ICH4-M chipset and currently a ICH8-M system. The I/O wait is at
100% when, the problem occurs.
This issues occurs on my desktop machine with an AMD 790G chipset too. I know
someone, who uses a VIA KT800 and is affected too by this bug. But as he uses
his computer only for office w
I have uses three different hard drives on the same machine. A Seagate
Momentus 7200.2 with a throughput about 70MB/s, a Western Digital
Scorpio WD2500BEVE with throughput about 60MB/s and a OCZ CoreSeries
64GB with throughput about 75MB/s and real write performance of 25MB/s.
The desktop responsi
There is a patch from RedHat for this problem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444759
--
3ware kernel driver 2.6.20 - 2.6.24 disk write performance extremely slow.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/113532
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
I have the same problem on my T61p.
[ 304.981399] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.PRIM.MSTR: found ejectable bay
[ 304.981427] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.PRIM.MSTR: Adding notify handler
[ 304.986272] ACPI: Error installing bay notify handler
Ubuntu 2.6.27-7.11-generic
Linux balrog 2.6.27-7-generic #1 SMP Tu
I have some new information on this topic. I tried to bypass the problem
by using a fast SSD, but the desktop responsiveness becomes horrible. I
think it's because I get only a write throughput of 20MB/s on sequential
write access on the block devices. After some research, I got some new
informatio
I don't think, that it is not a scheduler problem only. Switching the
scheduler does not result in significant changes. The desktop
responsiveness is still bad with all schedulers. The server kernel is
less affected, but the desktop responsiveness is still bad.
Fedora and ArchLinux are less affect
There is a new article on Phoronix, which compares the performance of different
ubuntu versions (Feisty - Intrepid).
(see http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1
)
There is a huge difference between Feisty and the following version in the "Ram
sequential read
I build the generic kernel without the "Fair group CPU scheduler", "Tickless
System (Dynamic Ticks)" and "High Resolution Timer Support". My systems seems
to be faster. Can someone check it?
My application startup speed is now between feisty and gutsy/hardy. Firefox is
still unusable on high io
Now I have made some tests with itrepid. The io wait time is lower and the
throughput is higher with and without concurrent disc access as in hardy or
gutsy. But the desktop responsiveness problem still exists.
The overall throughput of concurrent disc access is about 30% lower than on my
2.6.18
I tried the server (Ubuntu 2.6.24-17.31-server) kernel with all schedulers.
It's much better, but it's the performance like in gutsy. Working with vmware
is still awful. Mouse freezes, text delays, long start times of apps. Feisty is
two times faster on my old pentium-m machine, than my core2duo
After comparing some kernel code, I have found come really interesting
fact. I think the poor desktop responsiveness is affected by the changed
process scheduler (e.g. tickless kernel / high resolution timer ...) and
not by the disc scheduler. I have written a test program (sorry for the
dirty code
2.6.27-9 - 20/1M 120-200µs / 120ms / 159s - 100/1k 500-1000µs / 1s / 84s
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
u
Ubuntu 2.6.28-4.9-generic
20/1M5-7µs / 1s / 81,2- 100/1k 5-7µs / 1s / 40,2s
The new kernel freezes the system while executing my test in a normal runtime
environment.
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received this bug notif
Ubuntu 2.6.28-4.9-generic
20/1M5-7µs / 1s / 81,2- 100/1k 5-7µs / 1s / 40,2s
The new kernel freezes the system while executing my test in a normal runtime
environment.
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received this bug notif
Can someone check, if clocksource=jiffies as kernel boot parameter helps?
No Intel IGM users, as xorg does not start.
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscrib
I have noticed, that the following message is printed out, when this
flickers begins.
CE: hpet increasing min_delta_ns to 15000 nsec
Are AMD uses affected by this problem? AFAIK: There is no hpet
clocksource on am systems.
--
Screen flickers or blanks every 10 s with KDE4
https://bugs.launchpad
I have noticed, that the following message is printed out, when this
flickers begins.
CE: hpet increasing min_delta_ns to 15000 nsec
Are AMD uses affected by this problem? AFAIK: There is no hpet
clocksource on am systems.
--
Screen flickers when loading applications
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
I have tried the two block_write_full_page patches with ext4, but still
no improvement.
The only "working" patch is the "mm fix page writeback accounting to fix
oom condition under heavy I/O" from Mathieu Desnoyers, which does not
fix the problem, but makes it sufferable for me.
I am currently us
I was not able to test the alpha 5 on my notebook. I will start another
try soon.
But I have a workaround for all, who cannot work on their systems. I am
currently using Fedora 9 with the RHEL kernel (CentOS
2.6.18-92.1.10.el5) and have a speed up of 10 and more. It's great to
have all advantage o
The kernel 2.6.24-17 does not help. I think it's becomes even worse with the
new kernel.
I tried Debian Lenny and Fedora Core 8. The problem exists in these distros
too, but it's much better than in gutsy. I am using ext3 in journal mode. I
tried xfs, but same problem. I had never performance p
I have tried the vanilla kernel (2.6.22-14) on Gutsy. Now I get better disc
performance, (ext3 / bs=10 ~4MB/s / bs=100 7MB/s), but desktop responsiveness
becomes worse.
I have tried Hardy too for a while and recognise, that the responsiveness of
the desktop is sometimes worse than under gutsy, e
I have made some tests with feisty and gutsy.
I connected my SATA drive on the usb port and testet gutsy on the same machine.
Now I get a bag read and write performance of about 20MB/s instead of 50MB/s.
But the system is now faster. My system consumes much more CPU power, but even
thought ever
I have copied two big files concurrent (~15% bigger than my memory) with dd
form one ext3 (xfs) to another ext3 (xfs) partition (same hard disk). I tried a
block size of 10 bytes and 100 bytes for the copy operation. Tracker is
disabled. My disc performance is about 50 - 60 MB/s (USB2 ~20MB/s),
I can easy reproduce the problem using, when execute the following
command on hardy (2.6.24-12.22-generic). All updated. I have not tested
it under gutsy.
dd if=/dev/zero of=test1 bs=4k count=25 & \
dd if=/dev/zero of=test2 bs=4k count=25 & \
dd if=/dev/zero of=test3 bs=4k count=25 & \
Hi Leann,
I have made a mistake in the kernel versions. I am using the "Ubuntu
2.6.22-14.52-generic" kernel under gusty and tried the kernel linux-2.6.24.2
from kernel.org, but the desktop responsibility was not good (I think it was an
configuration mistake of my kernel build).
I tried the lin
Hi Leann,
I have tried a kernel from kernel.org under Gutsy, because I cannot work on my
machine anymore.
The interrupt issue seems to be a problem of my kernel-build.
With two writing and two reading disc access under Hardy 2.6.24-11-generic:
27,1% (173,7) : Rescheduling interrupts
26 matches
Mail list logo
