I'm surprised this is being debated. Look at Google:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=linux+high+io+desktopoq=linux+high+aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i64l2.1936j0j1sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8
You will clearly see that high enough IO will harm desktop responsiveness.
Surely all of these people aren't
IO is still an issue on every Ubuntu machine I've used - whenever it
becomes heavily used, everything else slows down, sometimes drastically.
What is there to test - has anything been done to address it?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
I don't think it is related to http://lwn.net/Articles/572911/ because it
is a 32bit machine.
I'll file the report later when I've got access to the said machine.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
It's very true that years ago I/O latency was much less of a problem
with Linux. When I first started using Debian full-time about ten
years ago, I never had problems with music skipping or anything like
that. I guess in the kernel development since then, throughput has
been prioritized over
Interesting proposal. Are you sure about that claim, Felix? Do you
have data to support it?
Now that linux-lowlatency is in universe and is just a build with
different option of the same kernel, it might not be risky at all, and
if that's a real win for responsiveness (which is definitely an
I don't think it was actually fixed, if you look at the upstream report.
On Jun 11, 2012 5:06 PM, Francisco J. Yáñez fjyan...@gmail.com wrote:
5 years later... too late :(
I had to change to another OS after 8 years using linux... I won't get
back now.
--
You received this bug notification
Yeah. Anytime a system has to swap, you know it because your desktop
freezes.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
Title:
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
To manage
Is ubuntu going to throw out upstart?
On Mar 15, 2011 8:47 AM, MSU 131...@bugs.launchpad.net wrote:
Are there plans to enable CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP for ubuntu kernels in
some ppa?
At least until ubuntu switch to systemd initialization?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
Is ubuntu going to throw out upstart?
Simple answer: no.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
Title:
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
That's what I assumed, but the previous post tricked me.
On Mar 15, 2011 12:34 PM, Omer Akram om2...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Is ubuntu going to throw out upstart?
Simple answer: no.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.
I was trying this patch in Arch Linux and reading some clarifications
in the forum (https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108516).
Apparently, this patch is not about IO performance, but only the
scheduling of process in different tty. So, if you launch all in the
same tty is not going to
daneel wrote:
I was trying this patch in Arch Linux and reading some clarifications
in the forum (https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108516).
Apparently, this patch is not about IO performance, but only the
scheduling of process in different tty. So, if you launch all in the
same tty
Regarding the PPA, you can always get the new kernel from here:
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.36-maverick/
/Peter
--
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
I haven't looked through the 3 patch files in that directory, but
according to this guy:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309#c510 stock .36
fixes the problem.
/Peter
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received this bug
Have try swappiness = 0 ?
2010/10/21 Peter Hoeg pe...@hoeg.com:
I'll try that on the box tomorrow.
The other odd thing is that turning off swap is extremely slow. As an
example if I have about 60% memory used then it will start swapping a
few 100 MBs. If I then do a swapoff -a, then the box
I haven't, no, but what effect would swappiness have if there is no swap
anyway?
/Peter
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 23:54, daneel 131...@bugs.launchpad.net wrote:
Have try swappiness = 0 ?
2010/10/21 Peter Hoeg pe...@hoeg.com:
I'll try that on the box tomorrow.
The other odd thing is that
I've tried a version of maverick kernel ported to Lucid, version
2.6.35-14.20~lucid2. It was supposed
to clear the problem but nop. I still have issues everytime I have
moderate to high I/O on the filesystem.
Tomorrow I will try another filesystem than ext4.
O. Gagnon
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at
For me too every time I do an apt-get upgrade, I have to let the
machine there for a while because it becomes unusable. The mouse is
always freezing and everything is lagging with the iowait at avoir
80%.
I have a AMD Athlon 64 with 2 gigs of RAM and a SATA drive. Changed
the harddrive too and
On Thursday 24 Jun 2010 11:15:56 Ravindran K wrote:
I'm using Ext4 and when I try to use data=writeback for my root partiton
(it was ext3 and converted to ext4), I get a error while booting which
indicates unable to change mode from ordered to writeback while
remounting.. I think it is another
Ravindran,
please see Johannes' comment
To use modes other than ordered on the root filesystem, pass the
mode to the kernel as boot parameter, e.g. rootflags=data=journal.
/peter
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 13:45, Ravindran K ravindra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:48 AM,
Ravindran,
Did you boot with the kernel parameter rootflags=data=writeback?
- Johannes
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Ravindran K ravindra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Johannes H. Jensen
j...@pseudoberries.comwrote:
So I just tested writeback on my desktop
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case on my ThinkPad X61. I
did not see any noticeable difference between writeback and ordered
mode. With writeback, interactivity is still sluggish during disk
writes. Applications hang, interfaces slow to respond etc. So clearly
this cannot be the main
Ritesh.
ext3 has supported writeback mode since at least 2001 (look here:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-fs8.html), so I hardly
think this could have caused any damage. If you have lost some VMs it
must be because something else is terribly wrong with your setup.
/peter
On Wed,
On Wednesday 23 Jun 2010 21:22:43 Peter Hoeg wrote:
ext3 has supported writeback mode since at least 2001 (look here:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-fs8.html), so I hardly
think this could have caused any damage. If you have lost some VMs it
must be because something else is
So I just tested writeback on my desktop computer which exhibits the
same problems. I mounted both the root filesystem and /home with
data=writeback (ext3).
So far the difference is *huge*! The system is much more responsive -
I'm writing this while 'stress -d 4' is running in the background. The
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Johannes H. Jensen
j...@pseudoberries.comwrote:
So I just tested writeback on my desktop computer which exhibits the
same problems. I mounted both the root filesystem and /home with
data=writeback (ext3).
So far the difference is *huge*! The system is much
Johannes, I've tried both the 64 and 32-bit versions of the whole ubuntu
distro, and it's not by any means any less present in the 32-bit version.
-
Khalid Rashid
- In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity, Albert Einstein.
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop
Is the issue limited to ubuntu? Is debian or mint affected?
KhaaL khalid.ras...@gmail.com wrote:
Johannes, I've tried both the 64 and 32-bit versions of the whole ubuntu
distro, and it's not by any means any less present in the 32-bit version.
-
Khalid Rashid
- In the
In my testing i've experienced this issue on opensuse aswell. This is most
likely a kernel bug, propably this one:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309
-
Khalid Rashid
- In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity, Albert Einstein.
--
Heavy Disk I/O
Yeah, unfortunately kernel bug #12309 is a complete mess of different
symptoms and problems, and thus completely useless. We should really
submit a new upstream bug regarding this exact issue and link this bug
against it.
FWIW, `stress -d 1' also reproduces the issue here.
- Johannes
On Wed,
Have you tried mounting the filesystems with writeback instead of
ordered?
/peter
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 15:42, Johannes H. Jensen j...@pseudoberries.com
wrote:
I just tested with the anticipatory scheduler on the stock Ubuntu
2.6.32:
# echo anticipatory /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
I haven't tried writeback, no. Is it possible to remount with this
option, or do I need to modify fstab and reboot?
- Johannes
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Peter Hoeg pe...@hoeg.com wrote:
Have you tried mounting the filesystems with writeback instead of
ordered?
/peter
On Wed, Jun
On Wednesday 23 Jun 2010 15:22:04 you wrote:
I haven't tried writeback, no. Is it possible to remount with this
option, or do I need to modify fstab and reboot?
On the fly remount of the data= mode was denied. And then, setting
data=writeback into /etc/fstab ended up with a read-only rootfs.
Yes, please :-)
I have myself to blame for clicking randomly while being on the phone.
-
Khalid Rashid
- In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity, Albert Einstein.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 19:31, Chauncellor brettcornw...@gmail.com wrote:
While I must say
Chase Douglas wrote:
There's a tunable parameter called 'swappiness' that determines whether
pages of memory are swapped out to hard disk in lieu of using the memory
for buffers or not. A value of 0 means memory pages will never be
swapped out in favor of buffers. A value of 100 is the
Actually, there is this PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~darxus/+archive/bfsbfq
That have the BFS scheduler and BFQ I/O scheduler which may also play
an interesting role here. I have not tried it yet but I should try it
soon.
best,
Paulo
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Jeff Epstein
Im using bfsbfq kernel. Its just a little better than the generic
kernel.
2010/3/25 Paulo J. S. Silva pjssi...@gmail.com:
Actually, there is this PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~darxus/+archive/bfsbfq
That have the BFS scheduler and BFQ I/O scheduler which may also play
an interesting role
Today Yan Li wrote:
Tobias Oetiker:
Thank you very much for the update. I'm a bit surprised to see the
single-reader on ext4 is worse than that on ext3. I'm to postpone the
upgrade of my systems to ext4. I dare not using data=writeback yet.
I'm a bit confused about why you ran this on a
Hi Yan,
Yesterday Yan Li wrote:
Tobi, your testing and results are great and very useful. It would be
better if you can run those tests on ext4. Thank you.
I have now also put ext4 through the paces ... its overall
behaviour seems to be that same than with ext3, the same settings
render the
Just changed from AHCI to IDE in BIOS (HP 8530w).
Initial feeling is that it makes a huge difference (for the better).
--
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
Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote:
Providing a testing kernel package would really be great! Then it would
make sense to ask people to confirm the bug is still here. Though we
have learned that I/O and responsiveness are very difficult to measure -
not sure we'll be able to clearly confirm anything on
--
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
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
no solution fore a about 2 years!!! wow! this really cool. but latest
ubuntu distros hung nice without need to copy large data. they just
hangs (windozz way?). sorry.
emm maybe i'm wrong, but this bug appears only (or almost always)
in ubuntu-based distros, isn't it?
has anyone tried to
Changing to writeback mode is not harmful, however it did not help in my
case. I got improved performance but i still have stutters during I/O
activity, the more intense the lower response from the GUI
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 04:23, cornbread rich...@cornbread.cc wrote:
This is happening to me
Hendrik van den Boogaard wrote:
Copy the large files in one window (PATA - SATA) and do a 'find /'
(SATA drive) in the other window. I found out that the 'find' command is
a *lot* more responsive pushing file names to the screen when I put the
NCQ buffer on 1 item (effectively disabling NCQ).
Hendrik van den Boogaard wrote:
@Jamie:
On my 7200.11 1 TB drives (also one of the first 1 TBs on the
market) I also disabled NCQ because I found some thread that it
might kill the contents of the file system. If you want I can lookup
where I found that.
I'm guessing it's barriers not being
Milan wrote:
Thanks for these detailed informations. So you suggest that the IO
scheduler is not giving enough priority to tasks other than the file
copy; that's an interesting way of finding the cause of the problem,
indeed! I suggest you try the new kernel, and if it's not fixed, go to
the
Hi Hendrick,
try 2.6.29.1 or 2.6.30rcX both kernels should have anumber of fixes
for this problem which has been affecting a wide range of systems.
cheers
tobi
Today Hendrik van den Boogaard wrote:
I just installed a fresh Jaunty and I am experiencing the same problem.
When I'm copying large
You can find .deb kernel packages for upstream kernels conveniently packaged at
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
Note however, that these are not supported kernels. They are meant for
users that are
sure the problem exists there too, but it also relates to a faulty accounting
of the number of pages in the write-cache causing huge ammounts of memory
being used when the disk is slow.
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received this bug
The whole issue finally got the attention of the kernel developers
...
see
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1053130?do=post_view_threaded#1053130
and related ...
cheers
tobi
--
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
http://it.oetiker.ch
That's definitely not the case here
--
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
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Hi
I have currently the following running.
2 x bzip2 -9 -c /dev/urandom /dev/null since I have 2 cores
and one dd if=/dev/zero of=test.10g bs=1M count=1
And only small lockups happenend during that time, which was about 9 minuttes
Bu small locoups I mean a couple of seconds.
After the
Any chance you could test with the latest Jaunty (2.6.28 based) kernel
as well? You should be able to put that kernel on an Intrepid base for
the purposes of a test. Be interesting to see if the problem is still
there. If its truly a cpu scheduler issue then we can point the
scheduler
You should always use 'sudo -i' to get a root prompt rather than 'sudo
bash', 'sudo su -', or any other method.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Irrlicht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No there are only big files on the DVD. 4.5 GB of files ~250 MB. I
changed to all available schedulers now, it
Does this mean this will likely ship with intrepid?
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, delayed allocation was added for ext4 in the 2.6.27 merge window.
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received
Ravindran K schrieb:
I get excellent performance in this custom kernel, but unfortunately
unable to use VMWare 2.0 under this kernel. Sad :(
** Attachment added: diskperf_2.6.25-rc8-custom0.txt Custom kernel
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/15828991/diskperf_2.6.25-rc8-custom0.txt
Can you
Not that this helps much for a laptop setup. But since I think that
the problem is more deeply rooted than this. I tried what happens
when the ext3 journal is kept on a fast external device ... It
seems to take the pressure of the vm, so that its fairness bugs do
not hurt much anymore.
Anil
Do a cat on the file. the word in [...] is the active scheduler.
The reason I am interessted in this bug is that we are seeing
similar issues on file servers and have not been able to pin
them down reliably. We found tweaks here and there, but nothing
decisive. :-(
cheers
tobi
Today Anil
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Francisco Borges
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Ravindran K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi ppl.. Pls try the server kernels (eg. 2.6.24-17-server ) and check
whether you have such issues.
I just booted with 2.6.24-17. It appears to
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Ravindran K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi ppl.. Pls try the server kernels (eg. 2.6.24-17-server ) and check
whether you have such issues.
I just booted with 2.6.24-17. It appears to solve the problem.
My usual test is to start copying large files (to an external
Anil,
Today Anil wrote:
It's working fine with 2.6.24-17-server. Even with udma2 selected, the
responsiveness is great.
The one difference is saw in the config of generic and server kernel that
might me affecting is this
CONFIG_DEFAULT_IOSCHED=cfq
CONFIG_DEFAULT_IOSCHED=deadline
you
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Rocko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hdparm -i shows that Hardy is configuring the drives on both my laptops
correctly for udma5 (100 MB/s), so I don't think that is the problem.
Same here. My laptop runs with udma4 but still presents the
responsiveness problem.
--
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Tim Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enable Hardy -proposed and install the -17.31 kernel which has
SCHED_CGROUPS enabled. I believe it will have an effect on interactivity
responsiveness.
Just to help other people that perhaps were puzzled, like I was, by
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:19 PM, exactt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this looks like a dup of #43484
Perhaps it is.
But FWIW I would just like to point out that:
1. I have the same case as many others here (heavy disk IO - poor
system responsiveness)
2. However, unlike every note on LP #43484, I
hi
strange, it is too slow even for coping from one partition to another on
the same hd. it's look like some hardware isn't configured properly.
maybe u should try to manually set one of UDMA mode (max from available,
but first try set max UDMA with software) (not PIO). it helps me on
feisty
Miguel Rodríguez wrote:
It may not be related, but we were having speed issues with tracker in
some computers here, and it was fixed after adding the relatime mount
option to ext3 indexed partitions.
Back when I first tried it, I added noatime (before I knew about
relatime), and it did indeed
Jamie McCracken wrote:
I dont know about other indexers
Someone should see what Beagle's like, I guess.
Trackers indexer is a hash table so words are written at random
locations - its not possible to write more than one word at a time nor
do we know whether certain words are stored
With the latest updates in gutsy this problem seems to be gone for me. I
just did a dist-upgrade and nearly didn't notice it, my laptop just
worked without lagging much.
I'm hooked :)
--
Lukas
--
Heavy Disk I/O harms desktop responsiveness
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131094
You received
Interesting... I may re-install it and see what the result is. It
would help to know that it's acting better before release. I'll do it...
I'll let yall know how it goes. Working on it now.
Bill
Lukas Kolbe wrote:
With the latest updates in gutsy this problem seems to be gone for me. I
OK... Installing tracker 0.6.3-0ubuntu2, which I am showing to be the
latest version. Also installing the tracker-search-tool.
and a reboot...
Initially.. Here we go... trackerd staying around 22 to 24% on Proc
monitor. high as 40 to 45%; almost seems like it's ramping up again.
I'll let
I had already tried the ionice in one of the bugs closed off as a dup, it
makes absolutely no difference whatsoever
On 02/10/2007, Amit Kucheria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As pointed out by Jeff above, can someone having the problems run
trackerd with ionice.
e.g. ionice -c3 -ppid of trackerd
I am on a sata machine, however i never had a problem with file copy
throughut speed etc., its just interactivity.
On 29/09/2007, Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could this be sata related?
Can everyone who has this problem indicate if this is so?
just wondering if its related to
I don't think it's sata-related as I have an old Pentium-M (735) that
doesn't support SATA, and my laptop does suffer from the I/O issue.
Jamie McCracken escribió:
Could this be sata related?
Can everyone who has this problem indicate if this is so?
just wondering if its related to
Jamie,
I run sata with lvm
cheers
tobi
Today Jamie McCracken wrote:
Could this be sata related?
Can everyone who has this problem indicate if this is so?
just wondering if its related to
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-
source-2.6.20/+bug/119730
--
Tobi Oetiker,
I don't think the problem is entirely ubunty made ... Other people
are looking at IO performance too.
This does look interesting
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/16/77
and this ... http://lkml.org/lkml/diff/2007/8/23/218/1
cheers
tobi
--
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten
Julien,
it seems that kernels 2.6.18 to 2.6.21 have some serios issues with
heavy disk io especially when multiple processes are fighting over
io and if read and write are going on in parallel ...
for us the upgrade to 2.6.22 helped a lot ...
there were changes to the io schedulers and massive
Today Julien Olivier wrote:
Tobias,
as I said, I have upgraded to gutsy recently, so I do have kernel
2.6.22, and I still have speed problems. Whether or not the kernel is
the culprit is still a mystery to me though.
Someone said that the problems seem to persist when you upgrade from
Same here. elevator=deadline doesn't seem to help, although I don't have
any objective data to complement Jamie's
Jamie McCracken escribió:
if anything elevator=deadline seems to cause higher iowait and for
longer periods (I even saw a 100% for it with that setting) when
running trackerd
79 matches
Mail list logo
