Re: tracking bug for ext4
John, 2.6.28 will come out around January and Jaunty will probably ship with 2.6.29 but it very well might not be a good idea to use it by default for Jaunty which is what shirish seemed to be talking about. Just because it is not considered development status doesn't necessarily mean it is stable enough to use as the default for all Ubuntu installs. Chris On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:30 -0500, John Dong wrote: Please stop filing nonsense bugs without first understanding the situation. ext4 will become the default filesystem once upstream recommends it for adoption (i.e. 2.6.28). GRUB still does not support reading ext4 so we will probably need a separate /boot on ext2/ext3, or wait for one of the SoC projects to magically finish. There is no need to clutter the bug tracker with this. -- 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: Jaunty open for development
Am 05.11.2008 um 14:08 schrieb Jim Legget: I have a LAN with 9 machines consisting of a mixture of UBUNTU Linux and Windows Vista / XP operating systems. I have found there is too much hand editing of configuration files such as NSSWITCH.CONF, SMB.CONF and others to make it worthwhile. My network is similar, plus a few Macintoshes. On the Ubuntu side, I can't remember to ever have hand-edited some configuration file. NFS, SMB, SSH, all clients work out of the box, after asking for a password. Could you be more specific? Which protocol, client or server, what exactly doesn't work? MarKus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- 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: where's 3G?
Olá jude e a todos. On Wednesday 05 November 2008 16:58:53 jude ui wrote: Where is the code for that? I've treid to find it on lanchpad...(however I really faild).. You should have tried the wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NetworkManager/Hardware/3G/Probing -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- 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: tracking bug for ext4
At any rate, regardless of whether we use it or not, making a bug in Launchpad is not going to change the course of action. My point was that Shirish should have first checked with the handful of core-devs and kernel devs who have a good understanding of filesystem development in the kernel tree, before filing bugs like this. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, 2.6.28 will come out around January and Jaunty will probably ship with 2.6.29 but it very well might not be a good idea to use it by default for Jaunty which is what shirish seemed to be talking about. Just because it is not considered development status doesn't necessarily mean it is stable enough to use as the default for all Ubuntu installs. Chris On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:30 -0500, John Dong wrote: Please stop filing nonsense bugs without first understanding the situation. ext4 will become the default filesystem once upstream recommends it for adoption (i.e. 2.6.28). GRUB still does not support reading ext4 so we will probably need a separate /boot on ext2/ext3, or wait for one of the SoC projects to magically finish. There is no need to clutter the bug tracker with this. -- 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 -- 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
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/294454
Please, consider this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/294454 -- WBR, Alexander Isaenko ICQ 28055660 -- 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
Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
Hi, According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks. I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop used to be quite capable of playing a 1080p x264 video but since upgrading to gutsy and then hardy it has become unwatchable, even mplayer reports that YOUR COMPUTER IS TOO SLOW I think that the reasons behind this reduction in performance across the board needs some serious investigation and work done to reverse this trend. At the moment I am faced with either running an old distro or upgrading hardware. Any discussion on this is welcome :) Thanks, Alan Phoronix article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_bench_2008num=1 -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
2008/11/6 mr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks. I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop used to be quite capable of playing a 1080p x264 video but since upgrading to gutsy and then hardy it has become unwatchable, even mplayer reports that YOUR COMPUTER IS TOO SLOW I think that the reasons behind this reduction in performance across the board needs some serious investigation and work done to reverse this trend. At the moment I am faced with either running an old distro or upgrading hardware. Any discussion on this is welcome :) Thanks, Alan Phoronix article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_bench_2008num=1 -- 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 See here: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-October/026794.html -- 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: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/294454
Now I remember why I didn't subscribe to this list. There's no need to e-mail the list hours after filing the bug. On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Isaenko Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Please, consider this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/294454 -- WBR, Alexander Isaenko ICQ 28055660 -- 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 -- 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
eeepc-acpi-source
hi The package eeepc-acpi-source was available for Intrepid during beta, but has now disappeared from the repository? http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=defaultsection=allarch=anysearchon=nameskeywords=eeepc-acpi-source Hope someone can help out. I am trying to fix the mute hotkey (Fn+F7) which was working before. But I stupidly let Cruft Remover remove the eeepc-acpi-modules, and now I can't rebuild it. Apologies if I posted to the wrong place. Regards Chew -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote: Hi, According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks. I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop used to be quite capable of playing a 1080p x264 video but since upgrading to gutsy and then hardy it has become unwatchable, even mplayer reports that YOUR COMPUTER IS TOO SLOW I think that the reasons behind this reduction in performance across the board needs some serious investigation and work done to reverse this trend. Indeed, half the reason I suggested Phoronix do these tests is to stimulate more investigation into performance issues. We've had anecdotal evidence of performance reductions since Gutsy at least, and Phoronix presented a good opportunity to get some solid numbers. I've spoken with upstream about -intel performance previously. They've indicated their focus is on the current git version of the driver, and so would ask that anyone wishing to provide feedback on performance to first run the git-head version of the driver. This would enable the user to update and give swift feedback to the developers on any performance changes they are experimenting with. Beyond that, I'd encourage anyone wishing to help improve -intel performance on Ubuntu to join the ubuntu-x mailing list to discuss it in additional detail. Bryce -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
Whoops, I thought you were talking about the recent article about -intel performance on x45 chips. But I see you're actually talking about an earlier article about Ubuntu performance in general: http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13022 Note that in that article they looked only at the proprietary -nvidia driver's performance, and did not find any noteworthy regressions in that. So depending on what video driver you're using, it may not have much relevance to your issue. Bryce On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote: Hi, According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks. I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop used to be quite capable of playing a 1080p x264 video but since upgrading to gutsy and then hardy it has become unwatchable, even mplayer reports that YOUR COMPUTER IS TOO SLOW I think that the reasons behind this reduction in performance across the board needs some serious investigation and work done to reverse this trend. At the moment I am faced with either running an old distro or upgrading hardware. Any discussion on this is welcome :) Thanks, Alan Phoronix article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_bench_2008num=1 -- 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 -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
I'm not convined those Phoronix test are really that accurate, especially after reading this one: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_macosxnum=1 It looks like they are not really comparing apples to apples, especially when it comes to java benchmarking. They're using very different gcc versions between the os's. Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Bryce Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Whoops, I thought you were talking about the recent article about -intel performance on x45 chips. But I see you're actually talking about an earlier article about Ubuntu performance in general: http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13022 Note that in that article they looked only at the proprietary -nvidia driver's performance, and did not find any noteworthy regressions in that. So depending on what video driver you're using, it may not have much relevance to your issue. Bryce On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote: Hi, According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks. I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop used to be quite capable of playing a 1080p x264 video but since upgrading to gutsy and then hardy it has become unwatchable, even mplayer reports that YOUR COMPUTER IS TOO SLOW I think that the reasons behind this reduction in performance across the board needs some serious investigation and work done to reverse this trend. At the moment I am faced with either running an old distro or upgrading hardware. Any discussion on this is welcome :) Thanks, Alan Phoronix article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_bench_2008num=1 -- 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 -- 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 -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end. I do not believe that is a good thing; Just because Gnu/Linux can be faster than windows vista doesn't automatically mean we are serving our users well. The good news always comes from the users directly who never complain about slowness. When you start to hear complaints, that's when you have a problem. I've noticed Savage2 doesn't work as well any more. But I was cutting it thin with 1GB of RAM with that game but fortunately 8.04 was just slim enough to run it well. Now however the extra bulk in 8.10 has made the game cache more often and me die is horribly messy ways. :-P Regards, Martin -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 14:38 -0500, Martin Owens wrote: Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end. I do not believe that is a good thing; Just because Gnu/Linux can be faster than windows vista doesn't automatically mean we are serving our users well. Yes, the response on /. to Ubuntu 8.10 is faster than Vista was generally so what? One guy said his father in law with a slide rule, graph paper, and a pencil was faster than Vista. The consensus was faster than Vista isn't hard, we want it to be faster than XP because remember, that's what most people are running. Why would they switch to Ubuntu if it's going to make their machine slower? -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
Quoting Bryce Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote: Hi, According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks. I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop used to be quite capable of playing a 1080p x264 video but since upgrading to gutsy and then hardy it has become unwatchable, even mplayer reports that YOUR COMPUTER IS TOO SLOW I think that the reasons behind this reduction in performance across the board needs some serious investigation and work done to reverse this trend. Indeed, half the reason I suggested Phoronix do these tests is to stimulate more investigation into performance issues. We've had anecdotal evidence of performance reductions since Gutsy at least, and Phoronix presented a good opportunity to get some solid numbers. I've spoken with upstream about -intel performance previously. They've indicated their focus is on the current git version of the driver, and so would ask that anyone wishing to provide feedback on performance to first run the git-head version of the driver. This would enable the user to update and give swift feedback to the developers on any performance changes they are experimenting with. Beyond that, I'd encourage anyone wishing to help improve -intel performance on Ubuntu to join the ubuntu-x mailing list to discuss it in additional detail. The disk IO performance decrease from Gutsy to Hardy is anything but anecdotal. This ( http://groups.google.com/group/zumastor/browse_thread/thread/7e413960ddc22811# ) bug report in the Zumastor project has some (quite scarce) info, although if you read the IRC logs, you'll realize how much pain it caused (it made Zumastor unusable due to slowness). It seems that the scheduler included by default since kernel 2.6.23 cuts performance in half for certain IO operations. Same thing for the CPU scheduler. For instance, here VMware Server is barely usable when high disk IO is requied because for some reason, after a few seconds of good performance (which implies high CPU usage) the kernel starts throttling CPU and VMware starves for a few seconds. What surprises me about this CPU throttling is it achieves nothing: VMware is left with 10% of CPU and the other 90% is idling! I'm forward-porting kernels 2.6.20 (Feisty's) and 2.6.22 (Gutsy's) to Hardy to verify it is the scheduler what is causing trouble. It will be available in my PPA ( http://launchpad.net/~pgquiles/+archive ) tomorrow, in case anyone is interested. -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
faster than Vista isn't hard, we want it to be faster than XP because remember, that's what most people are running. Why would they switch to Ubuntu if it's going to make their machine slower? I think performance is a very relative term. Slow for games can be great for a database. I am a lot more interested in baseline comparisons between identical systems. I think Ubuntu will make systems faster, but it also make some systems slower. It depends on what you mean by speed. In any case, purpose-built will always beat one size fits all. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 14:38 -0500, Martin Owens wrote: Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end. I do not believe that is a good thing; Just because Gnu/Linux can be faster than windows vista doesn't automatically mean we are serving our users well. Yes, the response on /. to Ubuntu 8.10 is faster than Vista was generally so what? One guy said his father in law with a slide rule, graph paper, and a pencil was faster than Vista. The consensus was faster than Vista isn't hard, we want it to be faster than XP because remember, that's what most people are running. Why would they switch to Ubuntu if it's going to make their machine slower? -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo -- 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 -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 20:41 +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: The disk IO performance decrease from Gutsy to Hardy is anything but anecdotal. This ( http://groups.google.com/group/zumastor/browse_thread/thread/7e413960ddc22811# ) bug report in the Zumastor project has some (quite scarce) info, although if you read the IRC logs, you'll realize how much pain it caused (it made Zumastor unusable due to slowness). It seems that the scheduler included by default since kernel 2.6.23 cuts performance in half for certain IO operations. Same thing for the CPU scheduler. For instance, here VMware Server is barely usable when high disk IO is requied because for some reason, after a few seconds of good performance (which implies high CPU usage) the kernel starts throttling CPU and VMware starves for a few seconds. What surprises me about this CPU throttling is it achieves nothing: VMware is left with 10% of CPU and the other 90% is idling! Remember that you can change the scheduler on the fly. The default scheduler is optimised for general desktop usage, where you have a large number of simultaneously running applications, applets, etc. and each one needs to be responsive. It performs badly at single operations that wish to consume all of the CPU or IO resource available. That includes disk copies, VMware, and funnily enough - benchmarks ;P The scheduler would fair extremely well if you compared, say, 20 simultaneously running benchmark suites between earlier releases and this one. All 20 would show fair results. I've always thought it would be interesting to be able to influence the scheduler on a per process basis - and do that from the Window Manager. ie. deliberately give the user's foreground process the majority of the time, and fair schedule the rest. I'm forward-porting kernels 2.6.20 (Feisty's) and 2.6.22 (Gutsy's) to Hardy to verify it is the scheduler what is causing trouble. It will be available in my PPA ( http://launchpad.net/~pgquiles/+archive ) tomorrow, in case anyone is interested. Why do you need to forward-port? The same kernel binary will just work. Also you can just fiddle on a per-disk basis, e.g.: echo -n deadline /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler Scott -- Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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: Ubuntu 8.10 significantly slower than previous versions
Am 06.11.2008 um 20:21 schrieb Dan Colish: They're using very different gcc versions between the os's. Well, newer gcc's are meant to produce faster code, aren't they? MarKus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- 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
