[gentoo-user] The meaning of number in brackets in /proc/cpuinfo power management?
Hello list! Does anyone know the meaning of the 'number between brackets' in the power management line of /proc/cpuinfo? For instance (I snipped the flags line to not clutter the email: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 21 model : 2 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6386 SE stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 2800.110 cache size : 2048 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : --snip-- bogomips: 5631.71 clflush size: 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm 100mhzsteps hwpstate [9] [10] What's [9] and [10] supposed to mean? (Note: The OS is not actually Gentoo, but this list is sooo knowledgeable, and methinks the output of /proc/cpuinfo is quite universal...) Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
LVM2+mdraid+systemd (was Re: [gentoo-user] systemd and lvm)
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Stefan G. Weichinger li...@xunil.at wrote: Am 12.09.2013 20:23, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: Stefan, what initramfs are you using? dracut, run via your kerninst-script. Could you please explain how is exactly your layout? From drives to partitions to PVs, VGs and LVs? And throw in there also the LUKS and RAID (if used) setup. I will try to replicate that in a VM. Next week, since we have a holiday weekend coming. thanks for your offer. I wil happily list my setup BUT let me tell at first that the latest sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.100 seems to have fixed that semaphore-issue. After booting my desktop with it I quickly tested: # lvcreate -n test -L1G VG03 Logical volume test created # fine! Three times ok ... But I still face the fact that the LVs weren't activated at boot time. Manual vgchange -ay needed ... or that self-written lvm.service enabled as mentioned somewhat earlier. Here my setup: # lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda8:00 931,5G 0 disk ├─sda1 8:10 2M 0 part ├─sda2 8:20 2G 0 part [SWAP] ├─sda3 8:30 600G 0 part │ └─md127 9:127 0 595,1G 0 raid1 │ ├─VG03-music 253:00 190G 0 lvm /mnt/music │ ├─VG03-platz 253:10 200G 0 lvm /mnt/platz │ ├─VG03-media 253:2045G 0 lvm /mnt/media │ ├─VG03-home 253:3030G 0 lvm │ ├─VG03-oopsfiles 253:4012G 0 lvm /mnt/oopsfiles │ ├─VG03-dropbox 253:50 5G 0 lvm /mnt/dropbox │ ├─VG03-distfiles 253:6010G 0 lvm /usr/portage/distfiles │ ├─VG03-gentoo32 253:7015G 0 lvm /mnt/gentoo32 │ ├─VG03-xp253:8040G 0 lvm │ └─VG03-test 253:90 1G 0 lvm └─sda6 8:6050G 0 part └─md49:4050G 0 raid1 sdb8:16 0 931,5G 0 disk ├─sdb1 8:17 0 100M 0 part ├─sdb2 8:18 0 98,8G 0 part ├─sdb3 8:19 050G 0 part │ └─md49:4050G 0 raid1 ├─sdb4 8:20 0 12,4G 0 part └─sdb6 8:22 0 595,1G 0 part └─md127 9:127 0 595,1G 0 raid1 ├─VG03-music 253:00 190G 0 lvm /mnt/music ├─VG03-platz 253:10 200G 0 lvm /mnt/platz ├─VG03-media 253:2045G 0 lvm /mnt/media ├─VG03-home 253:3030G 0 lvm ├─VG03-oopsfiles 253:4012G 0 lvm /mnt/oopsfiles ├─VG03-dropbox 253:50 5G 0 lvm /mnt/dropbox ├─VG03-distfiles 253:6010G 0 lvm /usr/portage/distfiles ├─VG03-gentoo32 253:7015G 0 lvm /mnt/gentoo32 ├─VG03-xp253:8040G 0 lvm └─VG03-test 253:90 1G 0 lvm sdc8:32 0 55,9G 0 disk ├─sdc1 8:33 025G 0 part / ├─sdc2 8:34 0 2G 0 part └─sdc3 8:35 0 28,9G 0 part /home sr0 11:01 1024M 0 rom This pretty much says it all, right? 2 hdds sda and sdb 1 ssd sdc root-fs and /home on ssd ... sda and sdb build two RAID-arrays (rather ugly names and partitions ... grown over time): # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md4 : active raid1 sdb3[0] sda6[2] 52395904 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] md127 : active raid1 sdb6[0] sda3[1] 623963072 blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: none # pvs PV VG Fmt Attr PSize PFree /dev/md127 VG03 lvm2 a-- 595,05g 47,05g Sorry I took my time, I was busy. Well, yours' a complex setup. This is a similar, although simpler, version: NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sr0 11:01 1024M 0 rom vda 253:005G 0 disk |-vda1 253:10 95M 0 part /boot |-vda2 253:20 1.9G 0 part [SWAP] `-vda3 253:303G 0 part /home vdb 253:16 05G 0 disk `-vdb1 253:17 05G 0 part / vdc 253:32 05G 0 disk `-vdc1 253:33 05G 0 part `-md127 9:127 05G 0 raid1 |-vg-vol1 (dm-0) 254:002G 0 lvm /home/canek/Music |-vg-vol2 (dm-1) 254:102G 0 lvm /home/canek/Pictures `-vg-vol3 (dm-2) 254:20 1020M 0 lvm /home/canek/Videos vdd 253:48 05G 0 disk `-vdd1 253:49 05G 0 part `-md127 9:127 05G 0 raid1 |-vg-vol1 (dm-0) 254:002G 0 lvm /home/canek/Music |-vg-vol2 (dm-1) 254:102G 0 lvm /home/canek/Pictures `-vg-vol3 (dm-2) 254:20 1020M 0 lvm /home/canek/Videos /boot on vda1 as ext2, / (root) on vdb1 as ext4, /home on vda3 as ext4, vda2 as swap, and vdc1 and vdd1 as
Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
Douglas J Hunley doug.hun...@gmail.com wrote: 1TB drives are right on the border of switching from RAIDZ to RAIDZ2. You'll see people argue for both sides at this size, but the 'saner default' would be to use RAIDZ2. You're going to lose storage space, but gain an extra parity drive (think RAID6). Consumer grade hard drives are /going/ to fail during a resilver (Murphy's Law) and that extra parity drive is going to save your bacon. The main advantage of RAIDZ2 is that you can remove one disk and the RAID is still operative. Now you put in a bigger disk. repeat until you replaced all disks and you did grow your storage. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
On 2013-09-20 5:17 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Douglas J Hunley doug.hun...@gmail.com wrote: 1TB drives are right on the border of switching from RAIDZ to RAIDZ2. You'll see people argue for both sides at this size, but the 'saner default' would be to use RAIDZ2. You're going to lose storage space, but gain an extra parity drive (think RAID6). Consumer grade hard drives are /going/ to fail during a resilver (Murphy's Law) and that extra parity drive is going to save your bacon. The main advantage of RAIDZ2 is that you can remove one disk and the RAID is still operative. Now you put in a bigger disk. repeat until you replaced all disks and you did grow your storage. Interesting, thanks... :)
[gentoo-user] Comparing RAID5/6 rebuild times, SATA vs SAS vs SSD
Hi all, Being that one of the big reasons I stopped using RAID5/6 was the rebuild times - can be DAYS for a large array - I am very curious if anyone has done, or knows of anyone who has done any tests comparing rebuild times when using slow SATA, faster SAS and fastest SSD drives. Of course, this question is moot if using ZFS RAID, but not every situation or circumstance will allow it... Thanks
Re: [gentoo-user] The meaning of number in brackets in /proc/cpuinfo power management?
* Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info [130920 03:45]:
Hello list!
Does anyone know the meaning of the 'number between brackets' in the
power management line of /proc/cpuinfo?
For instance (I snipped the flags line to not clutter the email:
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 21
model : 2
model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6386 SE
stepping: 0
cpu MHz : 2800.110
cache size : 2048 KB
fdiv_bug: no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug: no
coma_bug: no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 13
wp : yes
flags : --snip--
bogomips: 5631.71
clflush size: 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts ttp tm 100mhzsteps hwpstate [9] [10]
What's [9] and [10] supposed to mean?
(Note: The OS is not actually Gentoo, but this list is sooo
knowledgeable, and methinks the output of /proc/cpuinfo is quite
universal...)
I don't know for sure but looking in arch/x86/cpu/{powerflags,proc}.c it
looks like your kernel doesn't have a text description for power flag
bits 9 and 10.
In Linux 3.11.1 they are:
[9] - cpb, /* core performance boost */
[10] - eff_freq_ro, /* Readonly aperf/mperf */
Todd
Re: LVM2+mdraid+systemd (was Re: [gentoo-user] systemd and lvm)
Am 20.09.2013 10:46, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: Sorry I took my time, I was busy. Well, yours' a complex setup. This is a similar, although simpler, version: At first: thank your for the extended test setup you did and described ... I will dig through it as soon as I find time ... I am quite busy these days as well. Thanks, regards, Stefan!
Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
Am 19.09.2013 06:47, schrieb Grant: turn off readahead. ZFS' own readahead and the kernel's clash - badly. Turn off kernel's readahead for a visible performance boon. You are probably not talking about ZFS readahead but about the ARC. which does prefetching. So yes. I'm taking notes on this so I want to clarify, when using ZFS, readahead in the kernel should be disabled by using blockdev to set it to 8? - Grant . you can't turn it off (afaik) but 8 is a good value - because it is just a 4k block.
Re: LVM2+mdraid+systemd (was Re: [gentoo-user] systemd and lvm)
I haven't yet worked through all your suggestions/descriptions. Edited USE-flags and dracut-modules, worked around bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485202 and rebuilt kernel and initrd. Didn't activate LVs ... Now I edited fstab: I had the option systemd.automount enabled, like in /dev/mapper/VG03-media /mnt/media ext4 noatime,user_xattr,comment=systemd.automount 0 2 The/my idea behind that: the boot-process should not need to wait for the LVs activated/fscked/mounted ... and my root-fs and /home are both on the SSD anyway (not LVM-based). I removed that option and after the next boot the LVs were activated and mounted (though the booting was a bit slower, as expected). OK. I send this message now and test another few reboots. Thanks, Stefan
Re: [gentoo-user] re: duplicated packages
On 09/20/2013 04:37 AM, Dale wrote: Alexander Kapshuk wrote: On 09/19/2013 10:50 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 19/09/2013 20:58, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: Howdy, Is having duplicate packages a good or a bad thing in gentoo? I'm clear about having duplicate packages for the kernel. I'm using the more recent one, but hanging on to the old one just in case. Perhaps, the reason for having duplicate packages is the fact that various packages I have installed on the system may require a different version of a package I may already have installed. Is that it? _box0=; equery list --duplicates '*' * Searching for * ... [IP-] [ ] app-text/docbook-xml-dtd-4.1.2-r6:4.1.2 [IP-] [ ] app-text/docbook-xml-dtd-4.4-r2:4.4 [IP-] [ ] dev-lang/python-2.7.5-r2:2.7 [IP-] [ ] dev-lang/python-3.2.5-r2:3.2 [IP-] [ ] dev-libs/openssl-0.9.8y:0.9.8 [IP-] [ ] dev-libs/openssl-1.0.1e-r1:0 [IP-] [ ] media-libs/lcms-1.19:0 [IP-] [ ] media-libs/lcms-2.3:2 [IP-] [ ] sys-devel/autoconf-2.13:2.1 [IP-] [ ] sys-devel/autoconf-2.69:2.5 [IP-] [ ] sys-devel/automake-1.10.3:1.10 [IP-] [ ] sys-devel/automake-1.12.6:1.12 [IP-] [ ] sys-devel/automake-1.13.4:1.13 [IP-] [M ] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.8.13:3.8.13 [IP-] [ ] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.10.7:3.10.7 [IP-] [ ] virtual/libusb-0:0 [IP-] [ ] virtual/libusb-1:1 [IP-] [ ] x11-libs/gtk+-2.24.17:2 [IP-] [ ] x11-libs/gtk+-3.4.4:3 [IP-] [ ] x11-themes/gtk-engines-xfce-3.0.1-r200:0 [IP-] [ ] x11-themes/gtk-engines-xfce-3.0.1-r300:3 _ Thanks. They are not duplicates they are called SLOTS And you have them for a reason - one thing needs package A version X, something else needs package A version Y. Usually, you can have only one, SLOTS let you have more than one that can co-exist. Don't worry about them, let them be. You need them. No worries. Thanks. As a example, if you were to remove python2.7, its been nice knowing you. lol There is no telling what all that would break and that is just one package. I get a shiver up my spine just thinking about it. It's always good to ask about this sort of thing. The 20/20 rear view mirror view can bite. ;-) Dale :-) :-) Nice analogy. Thanks.
Re: LVM2+mdraid+systemd (was Re: [gentoo-user] systemd and lvm)
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Stefan G. Weichinger li...@xunil.at wrote: I haven't yet worked through all your suggestions/descriptions. Edited USE-flags and dracut-modules, worked around bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485202 and rebuilt kernel and initrd. Didn't activate LVs ... Now I edited fstab: I had the option systemd.automount enabled, like in /dev/mapper/VG03-media /mnt/media ext4 noatime,user_xattr,comment=systemd.automount 0 2 The/my idea behind that: the boot-process should not need to wait for the LVs activated/fscked/mounted ... and my root-fs and /home are both on the SSD anyway (not LVM-based). I removed that option and after the next boot the LVs were activated and mounted (though the booting was a bit slower, as expected). OK. I send this message now and test another few reboots. Forgot to mention it: I also enabled mdadm.service. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: LVM2+mdraid+systemd (was Re: [gentoo-user] systemd and lvm)
Am 20.09.2013 18:50, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: OK. I send this message now and test another few reboots. Forgot to mention it: I also enabled mdadm.service. That service is enabled here as well and running fine. # systemctl status lvm2-activation-net.service lvm2-activation-net.service - Activation of LVM2 logical volumes Loaded: loaded (/etc/lvm/lvm.conf) Active: inactive (dead) since Fr 2013-09-20 20:57:15 CEST Docs: man:lvm(8) man:vgchange(8) Process: 580 ExecStart=/sbin/lvm vgchange -aay --sysinit (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Process: 366 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/udevadm settle (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 580 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Sep 20 20:57:13 hiro.oops.intern lvm[580]: 10 logical volume(s) in volume group VG03 now active Sep 20 20:57:15 hiro.oops.intern systemd[1]: Started Activation of LVM2 logical volumes. nice ... but not at every boot ... one time they are activated, one time not. *sigh* Thanks for all your patience ... I could live with that lvm.service ;-) Considering to convert the mdadm-RAID to metadata 1.2 (wouldn't hurt anyway, right?) Stefan
Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
How about hardened? Does ZFS have any problems interacting with grsecurity or a hardened profile? Has anyone tried hardened and ZFS together? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Comparing RAID5/6 rebuild times, SATA vs SAS vs SSD
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: Hi all, Being that one of the big reasons I stopped using RAID5/6 was the rebuild times - can be DAYS for a large array - I am very curious if anyone has done, or knows of anyone who has done any tests comparing rebuild times when using slow SATA, faster SAS and fastest SSD drives. Of course, this question is moot if using ZFS RAID, but not every situation or circumstance will allow it... I don't have an all-out comparison, but at least a data point for you with somewhat cheap and recent hardware. I have a new (2 months old) home RAID6 made out of: 6 Western Digital Red 3TB SATA drives LSI 9200-8e SAS JBOD controller Sans Digital TR8X+B SAS/SATA enclosure w/ SFF-8088 cables I created a standard linux software RAID6 using mdadm, resulting in 11TB of usable space (4 data drives, 2 parity). A couple weeks ago one of the drives died. I hot-swap replaced it with a new one (with no down-time) and the rebuild took exactly 10 hours. Under normal operation, the speed of the array for contiguous read/writes is about 600MB/sec, which is faster than my SSD (single drive, not RAIDed). FWIW
Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:20:53AM -0700, Grant wrote: How about hardened? Does ZFS have any problems interacting with grsecurity or a hardened profile? Has anyone tried hardened and ZFS together? Hi, I did - I had some problems, but I'm not sure if they were caused by the combination of ZFS and hardened. There were some issues updating kernel and ZFS (most likely due to ZFS on root and me using ~arch hardened-sources and the live ebuild for zfs). There are some hardened options that are known to be not working (constify was one of them but that should be patched now). I think another one was HIDESYM. There is a (more or less regularly updated blogpost by prometheanfire (installation guide zfs+hardened+luks [1]). So you could ask him or ryao (he seems to support hardened+zfs at least to a certain degree). WKR Hinnerk [1] https://mthode.org/posts/2013/Sep/gentoo-hardened-zfs-rootfs-with-dm-cryptluks-062/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 06:41:47PM -0400, Douglas J Hunley wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:32 PM, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: Spo do I need that overlay at all, or just emerge zfs and its module? You do *not* need the overlay. Everything you need is in portage nowadays Afaik the overlay even comes with a warning from ryao not to use it unless being told by him to do so (since it's very experimental and includes patches that were not reviewed). Unless you want to do heavy testing (best while communicating with ryao) you should use the ebuilds from portage. WKR Hinnerk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
How about hardened? Does ZFS have any problems interacting with grsecurity or a hardened profile? Has anyone tried hardened and ZFS together? I did - I had some problems, but I'm not sure if they were caused by the combination of ZFS and hardened. There were some issues updating kernel and ZFS (most likely due to ZFS on root and me using ~arch hardened-sources and the live ebuild for zfs). There are some hardened options that are known to be not working (constify was one of them but that should be patched now). I think another one was HIDESYM. There is a (more or less regularly updated blogpost by prometheanfire (installation guide zfs+hardened+luks [1]). So you could ask him or ryao (he seems to support hardened+zfs at least to a certain degree). [1] https://mthode.org/posts/2013/Sep/gentoo-hardened-zfs-rootfs-with-dm-cryptluks-062/ Thanks for the link. It doesn't look too bad. - Grant
