Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/02/2017 12:27 PM, Joerg Lechner wrote:

Hi,
investigation of the first action point:  "dnf update" takes too much
time in F25.
I made timestamps by my watch not by the system.

start of dnf update  09:48

...

update finished at  10:37

Question:   Are these update times ok, tolerable,


Hard to tell. Overall, these times are miserable and are unlike what I 
am used to. But from what you are telling, one can only guess on the 
origin, esp. one would have to identify whether it's the download 
transfer rate or a bottleneck on your machine.



My first guess on the origin, would be drpms, which I found are a 
significant source of time-waste, esp. on machines with slow  (e.g. 
flash?) or little memory. I recommend to try switching them off (Add 
deltarpm=false to /etc/dnf/dnf.conf).



My second guess would be you to have hit a slow mirror. During project 
phases with heavy mirror activities, like the current one, I have been 
experiencing a tendency in yum and dnf to favour broken and outdated 
mirrors, seemingly because the fast mirrors are constantly out of sync.


In this case, aborting (Ctrl C) and erasing the cache ("dnf clean all" 
or rm -rf /var/cache/dnf) and retrying again, hoping dnf will choose a 
better mirror, should help.



A third possibility, I have seen during updates is something else 
loading a machine to an extend, it starts behaving utterly slow. In the 
past, one such cases I was facing journald trying to fill its files at 
rates the machine could not write them to disk anymore, in recent times, 
I am occasionally experiencing situations which look like network-io 
bringing machines close to stand-still.


Ralf


___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Joerg Lechner]

 Hi Adam,
I made a new F25 installation on an USB 3.0 flash medium, so far not all 
Packets, which are on the previous installation.
The First update (dnf update about 900 files) was very quick, so there is a 
problem in my old F25 installation,
I will remove the old installation and forget this update problem.
Kind regards

 

 

-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- 
Von: Joerg Lechner <julech...@aol.com>
An: test <test@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Verschickt: Do, 2. Mrz 2017 15:21
Betreff: Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better


Hi Adam,
my configuration is F25 on an USB 3.0 Flash medium, 64GB, connected to the 
Laptop via USB 3.0. I use a 32GB USB 3.0 Flash medium for the F24 installation, 
which quick, as it would have been installed on the internal harddisk, my 
Laptop has 8GB Ram. So it's possible that I have made a "bad" F25 installation, 
and if not then the USB 3.0 "connection" is in F25 worse then in F24. I will 
keep this "bad" installation for eventually needed later investigation, and 
make a new install of F25 on an other 32GB USB 3.0 medium, then I can say If 
that, what I currently have is only a bad installation, or F25 is slow in an 
installation on an USB 3.0 flash medium. I need a little bit of time, to make a 
new installation.
Kind regards

 

 

 

-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- 
Von: Adam Pribyl <pri...@lowlevel.cz>
An: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases 
<test@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Verschickt: Do, 2. Mrz 2017 13:40
Betreff: Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

If this is a wall clock, then the update took 49minutes right? This is 
really weired. Download speed indicated the download took 2.4 minutes.

This looks to me like some extremely slow access to hard drive to resolve 
all dependencies, rebuild delta RPM and then install them. Do you use SSD 
or HDD? What does the hdparm -tT /dev/sda (if sda is your primary disk) 
says? smartctl output may also be interesting.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Joerg Lechner wrote:

> Hi,
> investigation of the first action point:  "dnf update" takes too much time in 
> F25.
> I made timestamps by my watch not by the system.
>
.
..


___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Joerg Lechner]

Hi Adam,
my configuration is F25 on an USB 3.0 Flash medium, 64GB, connected to the 
Laptop via USB 3.0. I use a 32GB USB 3.0 Flash medium for the F24 installation, 
which quick, as it would have been installed on the internal harddisk, my 
Laptop has 8GB Ram. So it's possible that I have made a "bad" F25 installation, 
and if not then the USB 3.0 "connection" is in F25 worse then in F24. I will 
keep this "bad" installation for eventually needed later investigation, and 
make a new install of F25 on an other 32GB USB 3.0 medium, then I can say If 
that, what I currently have is only a bad installation, or F25 is slow in an 
installation on an USB 3.0 flash medium. I need a little bit of time, to make a 
new installation.
Kind regards

 

 

 

-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- 
Von: Adam Pribyl <pri...@lowlevel.cz>
An: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases 
<test@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Verschickt: Do, 2. Mrz 2017 13:40
Betreff: Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

If this is a wall clock, then the update took 49minutes right? This is 
really weired. Download speed indicated the download took 2.4 minutes.

This looks to me like some extremely slow access to hard drive to resolve 
all dependencies, rebuild delta RPM and then install them. Do you use SSD 
or HDD? What does the hdparm -tT /dev/sda (if sda is your primary disk) 
says? smartctl output may also be interesting.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Joerg Lechner wrote:

> Hi,
> investigation of the first action point:  "dnf update" takes too much time in 
> F25.
> I made timestamps by my watch not by the system.
>
> start of dnf update  09:48
>
> [joerg@linux ~]$ su
> Passwort:
> [root@linux joerg]# dnf update
> Letzte Prüfung auf abgelaufene Metadaten: vor 0:06:22 am Thu Mar  2 09:41:58 
> 2017.
> Abhängigkeiten sind aufgelöst.
> 
> PackageArch   Version   Paketquelle
>   Größe
> 
> Installieren:
> kernel x86_64 4.9.12-200.fc25   updates   96 k
> kernel-corex86_64 4.9.12-200.fc25  updates   20 M
> kernel-modules x86_64 4.9.12-200.fc25  updates   22 M
> kernel-modules-extra   x86_64 4.9.12-200.fc25  updates  2.2 M
> libglvnd   x86_64 1:0.2.999-10.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates   89 k
> libglvnd-egl   x86_64 1:0.2.999-10.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates   43 k
> libglvnd-gles  x86_64 1:0.2.999-10.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates   31 k
> libglvnd-glx   x86_64 1:0.2.999-10.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates  124 k
> Aktualisieren:
> NetworkManager-openvpn x86_64 1:1.2.8-2.fc25updates  237 k
> NetworkManager-openvpn-gnome
>  x86_64 1:1.2.8-2.fc25updates   91 k
> audit x86_64 2.7.3-1.fc25  updates  243 k
> audit-libsx86_64 2.7.3-1.fc25  updates  106 k
> audit-libs-python x86_64 2.7.3-1.fc25  updates   77 k
> audit-libs-python3x86_64 2.7.3-1.fc25  updates   76 k
> breeze-icon-theme noarch 5.31.0-1.fc25 updates  8.3 M
> copy-jdk-configs  noarch 2.2-2.fc25updates   19 k
> fedora-repos  noarch 25-2  updates   88 k
> gnome-autoar  x86_64 0.2.0-1.fc25  updates   49 k
> gnome-terminalx86_64 3.22.1-5.fc25 updates  1.2 M
> gspellx86_64 1.2.3-1.fc25  updates   81 k
> gstreamer1x86_64 1.10.4-1.fc25 updates  1.2 M
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
>x86_64 1.10.4-1.fc25   updates  1.8 M
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-gtk
>x86_64 1.10.4-1.fc25 updates   32 k
> gstreamer1-plugins-base   x86_64 1.10.4-1.fc25 updates  1.5 M
> gstreamer1-plugins-good   x86_64 1.10.4-1.fc25 updates  2.0 M
> ibus-typing-booster   noarch 1.5.22-1.fc25 updates  3.8 M
> kde-style-breeze  x86_64 5.8.6-1.fc25  updates  179 k
> kernel-headersx86_64 4.9.12-200.fc25   updates  1.1 M
> kf5-filesystemx86_64 5.31.0-1.fc25 updates   15 k
> libblockdev   x86_64 1.9-9.fc25updates   85 k
> libblockdev-btrfs x86_64 1.9-9.fc25updates   41 k
> libblockdev-cryptox86_64 1.9-9.fc25updates   43 k
> libblockdev-dm  

Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Adam Pribyl]

fc25
 mesa-libGLES.x86_64 13.0.4-1.fc25
 mesa-libgbm.x86_64 13.0.4-1.fc25
 mesa-libglapi.x86_64 13.0.4-1.fc25
 mesa-libwayland-egl.x86_64 13.0.4-1.fc25
 mesa-libxatracker.x86_64 13.0.4-1.fc25
 open-vm-tools.x86_64 10.1.5-1.fc25
 open-vm-tools-desktop.x86_64 10.1.5-1.fc25
 openssh.x86_64 7.4p1-3.fc25
 openssh-clients.x86_64 7.4p1-3.fc25
 openssh-server.x86_64 7.4p1-3.fc25
 osinfo-db.noarch 20170225-1.fc25
 ostree.x86_64 2017.2-3.fc25
 ostree-libs.x86_64 2017.2-3.fc25
 oxygen-icon-theme.noarch 1:5.31.0-1.fc25
 pciutils.x86_64 3.5.4-1.fc25
 pciutils-libs.x86_64 3.5.4-1.fc25
 pcre.x86_64 8.40-5.fc25
 pcre-utf16.x86_64 8.40-5.fc25
 pcre2.x86_64 10.23-2.fc25
 perl-threads.x86_64 1:2.15-1.fc25
 perl-threads-shared.x86_64 1.55-1.fc25
 publicsuffix-list-dafsa.noarch 20170206-1.fc25
 python3-blockdev.x86_64 1.9-9.fc25
 python3-gstreamer1.x86_64 1.10.4-1.fc25
 python3-rpm.x86_64 4.13.0.1-1.fc25
 qca.x86_64 2.1.3-3.fc25
 rpm.x86_64 4.13.0.1-1.fc25
 rpm-build-libs.x86_64 4.13.0.1-1.fc25
 rpm-libs.x86_64 4.13.0.1-1.fc25
 rpm-plugin-selinux.x86_64 4.13.0.1-1.fc25
 rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit.x86_64 4.13.0.1-1.fc25
 selinux-policy.noarch 3.13.1-225.11.fc25
 selinux-policy-targeted.noarch 3.13.1-225.11.fc25
 sos.noarch 3.3-1.fc25
 systemd.x86_64 231-14.fc25
 systemd-container.x86_64 231-14.fc25
 systemd-libs.x86_64 231-14.fc25
 systemd-pam.x86_64 231-14.fc25
 systemd-udev.x86_64 231-14.fc25
 texlive-base.noarch 6:2016-32.20160520.fc25
 texlive-dvipng.noarch 6:svn40768-32.fc25.1
 texlive-dvipng-bin.x86_64 6:svn40473-32.20160520.fc25.1
 texlive-kpathsea.noarch 6:svn41139-32.fc25.1
 texlive-kpathsea-bin.x86_64 6:svn40473-32.20160520.fc25.1
 texlive-lib.x86_64 6:2016-32.20160520.fc25
 texlive-metafont.noarch 6:svn40793-32.fc25.1
 texlive-metafont-bin.x86_64 6:svn40987-32.20160520.fc25.1
 texlive-tetex.noarch 6:svn41059-32.fc25.1
 texlive-tetex-bin.noarch 6:svn36770.0-32.20160520.fc25.1
 texlive-texlive.infra.noarch 6:svn41280-32.fc25.1
 texlive-texlive.infra-bin.x86_64 6:svn40312-32.20160520.fc25.1
 tracker.x86_64 1.10.5-1.fc25

update finished at  10:37

Question:   Are these update times ok, tolerable, or is this worthwhile for 
filing a bug?

My system is the same for F24 and F25.
Laptop, 1.7GHz, turbo boost up to 2.7 GHz
F25/F24 on an USB 3.0 flash medium, connected via USB 3.0 to the Laptop
Network: Cable TV internet, download 50GB/sec

The other problems (USB connected disks, usb flash media), there I am possibly 
one of very few users, I will make these investigations next time and report.
Kind regards








-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-
Von: Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org>
An: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases 
<test@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Verschickt: Mi, 1. Mrz 2017 14:45
Betreff: Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:19:18AM -0500, Joerg Lechner wrote:> - last dnf update took far too much time> - 
shutdown process not tolerable, takes too much time.> - usb connection erroneous. i.e. after copying to flash 
medium or> external disk connected by an usb adapter in most trials, when I try> to eject the usb connected 
medium, there - after a copying process is> finished a long time ago - comes the message "usb medium in 
use",> this for ever. Also after shutdown of F25 in some cases I had to> repair the usb connected medium 
with a new partition table. Things> like that are not nice.These things seem unlikely to actually be very version 
dependent andprobably are more to do with the specific configuration. The first twocomplaints are not actionable — 
the dnf problem might just be yournetwork, and without any detail, we don't know what is holding up yoursystem's 
shutdown.The third is likely a kernel issue, and may be something you can tune.Are you *sure* you don't have anything

 from the externel disk in use?The /sbin/lsof command can tell you.Have you tried typing 
"sync" at the command line before attempting toeject the disk?-- Matthew 
Miller<mat...@fedoraproject.org>Fedora Project 
Leader___test mailing list -- 
test@lists.fedoraproject.orgTo unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org




Odchozi zprava neobsahuje viry, protoze nebyla odeslana z Windows.
Otestovano zdarma a legalne na OS Linux.
(Proc pouzivat Linux - http://proc.linux.cz/).
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Joerg Lechner]

and report.
Kind regards


 

 

 

-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- 
Von: Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org>
An: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases 
<test@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Verschickt: Mi, 1. Mrz 2017 14:45
Betreff: Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:19:18AM -0500, Joerg Lechner wrote:> - last dnf 
update took far too much time> - shutdown process not tolerable, takes too much 
time.> - usb connection erroneous. i.e. after copying to flash medium or> 
external disk connected by an usb adapter in most trials, when I try> to eject 
the usb connected medium, there - after a copying process is> finished a long 
time ago - comes the message "usb medium in use",> this for ever. Also after 
shutdown of F25 in some cases I had to> repair the usb connected medium with a 
new partition table. Things> like that are not nice.These things seem unlikely 
to actually be very version dependent andprobably are more to do with the 
specific configuration. The first twocomplaints are not actionable — the dnf 
problem might just be yournetwork, and without any detail, we don't know what 
is holding up yoursystem's shutdown.The third is likely a kernel issue, and may 
be something you can tune.Are you *sure* you don't have anything from the 
externel disk in use?The /sbin/lsof command can tell you.Have you tried typing 
"sync" at the command line before attempting toeject the disk?-- Matthew 
Miller<mat...@fedoraproject.org>Fedora Project 
Leader___test mailing list -- 
test@lists.fedoraproject.orgTo unsubscribe send an email to 
test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Allan Mwenda]

Can confirm on the very last package on my update internet speeds tanked (dnf 
upgrade being the command) 
The others I haven't  experienced. 

On March 1, 2017 4:45:09 PM GMT+03:00, Matthew Miller 
 wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:19:18AM -0500, Joerg Lechner wrote:
>> - last dnf update took far too much time
>> - shutdown process not tolerable, takes too much time.
>> - usb connection erroneous. i.e. after copying to flash medium or
>> external disk connected by an usb adapter in most trials, when I try
>> to eject the usb connected medium, there - after a copying process is
>> finished a long time ago - comes the message "usb medium in use",
>> this for ever. Also after shutdown of F25 in some cases I had to
>> repair the usb connected medium with a new partition table. Things
>> like that are not nice.
>
>These things seem unlikely to actually be very version dependent and
>probably are more to do with the specific configuration. The first two
>complaints are not actionable — the dnf problem might just be your
>network, and without any detail, we don't know what is holding up your
>system's shutdown.
>
>The third is likely a kernel issue, and may be something you can tune.
>Are you *sure* you don't have anything from the externel disk in use?
>The /sbin/lsof command can tell you.
>
>Have you tried typing "sync" at the command line before attempting to
>eject the disk?
>
>-- 
>Matthew Miller
>
>Fedora Project Leader
>___
>test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Joerg Lechner]

Hi,
thank You Matthiew, I will investigate and give more details.
Kind regards

 

 

 

-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- 
Von: Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org>
An: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases 
<test@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Verschickt: Mi, 1. Mrz 2017 14:45
Betreff: Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:19:18AM -0500, Joerg Lechner wrote:> - last dnf 
update took far too much time> - shutdown process not tolerable, takes too much 
time.> - usb connection erroneous. i.e. after copying to flash medium or> 
external disk connected by an usb adapter in most trials, when I try> to eject 
the usb connected medium, there - after a copying process is> finished a long 
time ago - comes the message "usb medium in use",> this for ever. Also after 
shutdown of F25 in some cases I had to> repair the usb connected medium with a 
new partition table. Things> like that are not nice.These things seem unlikely 
to actually be very version dependent andprobably are more to do with the 
specific configuration. The first twocomplaints are not actionable — the dnf 
problem might just be yournetwork, and without any detail, we don't know what 
is holding up yoursystem's shutdown.The third is likely a kernel issue, and may 
be something you can tune.Are you *sure* you don't have anything from the 
externel disk in use?The /sbin/lsof command can tell you.Have you tried typing 
"sync" at the command line before attempting toeject the disk?-- Matthew 
Miller<mat...@fedoraproject.org>Fedora Project 
Leader___test mailing list -- 
test@lists.fedoraproject.orgTo unsubscribe send an email to 
test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:19:18AM -0500, Joerg Lechner wrote:
> - last dnf update took far too much time
> - shutdown process not tolerable, takes too much time.
> - usb connection erroneous. i.e. after copying to flash medium or
> external disk connected by an usb adapter in most trials, when I try
> to eject the usb connected medium, there - after a copying process is
> finished a long time ago - comes the message "usb medium in use",
> this for ever. Also after shutdown of F25 in some cases I had to
> repair the usb connected medium with a new partition table. Things
> like that are not nice.

These things seem unlikely to actually be very version dependent and
probably are more to do with the specific configuration. The first two
complaints are not actionable — the dnf problem might just be your
network, and without any detail, we don't know what is holding up your
system's shutdown.

The third is likely a kernel issue, and may be something you can tune.
Are you *sure* you don't have anything from the externel disk in use?
The /sbin/lsof command can tell you.

Have you tried typing "sync" at the command line before attempting to
eject the disk?

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

F25 much more worse then F24, I hope F26 will be better

[Joerg Lechner]

Hi,
- last dnf update took far too much time
- shutdown process not tolerable, takes too much time.
- usb connection erroneous. i.e. after copying to flash medium or external disk 
connected by an usb adapter in most trials, when I try to eject the usb 
connected medium, there - after a copying process is finished a long time ago - 
comes the message "usb medium in use", this for ever. Also after shutdown of 
F25 in some cases I had to repair the usb connected medium with a new partition 
table. Things like that are not nice.

Conclusion: I use F24 and if F26 will be better switch to F26 and omit F25.
Kind regards  
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org