On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 13:30 +0100, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote:
> > It has something to do with the drive. I've just connected my external drive
> > to the Intel controller and copied some GB of data around without
> > performance
> > impacts! So m
Hello Jeremy :-)
Thanks for your constructive critics :-) "Me too" is also important
because it shows we do no hallucinate and the video shows the problem
is real so we try to get common denominator :-) :-)
I will be back from delegation this weekend and I will provide more
useful data from both
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:30:53PM +0100, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote:
> > It has something to do with the drive. I've just connected my external drive
> > to the Intel controller and copied some GB of data around without
> > performance
> > impact
Guys can you please check if you have HAL daemon running? When I
switched it off my system got some hickups but is far more
responsive.. maybe this is another cause?
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote:
> It has something to do with the drive. I've just connected my external drive
> to the Intel controller and copied some GB of data around without performance
> impacts! So my new WDC drive works on both the JMicron and the Intel
> contr
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:58:11 CeDeROM wrote:
> I am not sure if this is the case of external drive, it only helped us
> to figure out that problem is with writing to ICH SATA - WDC
> configuration. It was also slow in 9.0 I guess, this is why I have
> switched from Ext2 to UFS2 to get some
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, CeDeROM wrote:
> I am not sure if this is the case of external drive, it only helped us
> to figure out that problem is with writing to ICH SATA - WDC
> configuration.
Sorry, this is not exactly true - this happens on both Intel i5
equipment and AMD PhenomII x6 e
I am not sure if this is the case of external drive, it only helped us
to figure out that problem is with writing to ICH SATA - WDC
configuration. It was also slow in 9.0 I guess, this is why I have
switched from Ext2 to UFS2 to get some speedup, so things are lets say
acceptable for the Atari fan
I have two WD's a 1TB and a 2TB. Upgraded to 9.1 three days ago and
don't think it is any worse than 9.0. I find things slow down if two
things are trying to access the drive at the same time and when I do get
some swapping it gets unbearable. One thing that always annoyed me was
the security scan
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 14:24:24 CeDeROM wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote:
> >> Maybe it's hardware related? I experience the same slowness as you do as
> >> soon as I copy more than a few MB of data *on t
CeDeROM wrote:
> I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous
> releases on my desktop. I have noted this slow down at 9.1-RC. I have
> AMD64 4GB RAM i3 CPU and when I simply run Chromium, VBox with Windows
> XP 64bit (1GB allocated) and VBox with Ubuntu 64bit (1GB allocate
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote:
>> Maybe it's hardware related? I experience the same slowness as you do as soon
>> as I copy more than a few MB of data *on the same drive*. (...)
>
> Hello Christian :-) Thank you for
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote:
> Maybe it's hardware related? I experience the same slowness as you do as soon
> as I copy more than a few MB of data *on the same drive*. (...)
Hello Christian :-) Thank you for your feedback! :-) There was no
problem today to copy fr
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 13:11:12 CeDeROM wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:35 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> > I can work on VESA xorg driver, I can have no multimedia drivers, but
> > the system performance is really important factor for me and working
> > like this is really unpleasant on a pretty m
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:35 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> I can work on VESA xorg driver, I can have no multimedia drivers, but
> the system performance is really important factor for me and working
> like this is really unpleasant on a pretty modern machine :-(
I made a short movie to show how bad this
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:08 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
>> VBox itself also needs some RAM and the emulated Graphics Card which
>> can easily be 128M per VM.
>
> This is what I get with CP and one VBox running - memory use is not
> that high but
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
> VBox itself also needs some RAM and the emulated Graphics Card which
> can easily be 128M per VM.
This is what I get with CP and one VBox running - memory use is not
that high but the responsiveness is getting low now:
last pid: 20852;
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
>> You can try to switch to emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy which is
>> VirtualBox 4.1.x
>> just to rule out that this is a vbox regression. Just be sure to power
>> down the VMs
>> first.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous
> releases on my desktop.
Right now as I backup my data (~250GB) I also notice deadlocks on data
transfers. I also noticed that on another machine (6 cores, 16GB RAM)
with 9.1-R
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
> You can try to switch to emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy which is
> VirtualBox 4.1.x
> just to rule out that this is a vbox regression. Just be sure to power
> down the VMs
> first.
> It would be interesting to watch if the machine starts
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, CeDeROM wrote:
> Hello :-)
>
> I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous
> releases on my desktop. I have noted this slow down at 9.1-RC. I have
> AMD64 4GB RAM i3 CPU and when I simply run Chromium, VBox with Windows
> XP 64bit (1GB all
Hello :-)
I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous
releases on my desktop. I have noted this slow down at 9.1-RC. I have
AMD64 4GB RAM i3 CPU and when I simply run Chromium, VBox with Windows
XP 64bit (1GB allocated) and VBox with Ubuntu 64bit (1GB allocated) my
machin
22 matches
Mail list logo
