1 |
Joost Roeleveld writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wednesday 25 August 2010 21:38:10 Alex Schuster wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
> > And I just moved my PORTAGE_TMPDIR to an unencrypted partition. |
6 |
> > Can LVM create noticeable overhead? I also resized my logical volumes |
7 |
> > a couple of times, could this lead to some LVM fragmentation? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Theoretically, LVM will create an additional overhead. |
10 |
> But I am extensibly using LVM on all my machines and haven't noticed |
11 |
> any significant performance drops. |
12 |
|
13 |
That's also what I heard. |
14 |
|
15 |
> LVM-fragmentation is a definite possibility. |
16 |
> To defragment it, have a look at the following: |
17 |
> |
18 |
> http://bisqwit.iki.fi/source/lvm2defrag.html |
19 |
|
20 |
Cool! |
21 |
|
22 |
> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/how-do-i-lvm2- |
23 |
> defrag- or-move-based-on-logical-volumes-689335/ |
24 |
> |
25 |
> I played with the first one on an older machine once and it does work |
26 |
> quite nicely. |
27 |
|
28 |
Any idea how to check how bad the fragmentation actually is? |
29 |
|
30 |
BTW: |
31 |
wonko@weird ~ $ mount | wc -l |
32 |
48 |
33 |
|
34 |
I use LVM for about everything now, it makes things so much easier. First, |
35 |
I had two volume groups on my system drive, one for the system, placed at |
36 |
the front where the drive is supposed to be faster, and one for data. But |
37 |
I don't do this any more, it cuts down flexibility, and is probably not |
38 |
worth the effort. |
39 |
|
40 |
> > > However, how is the write and read performance on those disks? |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > Here's the output of hdparm -t for all drives, 4 times. |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > /dev/sda: (SATA system drive) |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.08 seconds = 38.37 MB/sec |
47 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 194 MB in 3.11 seconds = 62.47 MB/sec |
48 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 322 MB in 3.01 seconds = 106.82 MB/sec |
49 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.00 seconds = 81.21 MB/sec |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> > /dev/sdb: (PATA master) |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.02 seconds = 37.70 MB/sec |
54 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 114 MB in 3.00 seconds = 37.97 MB/sec |
55 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.06 MB/sec |
56 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 116 MB in 3.05 seconds = 38.07 MB/sec |
57 |
> > |
58 |
> > /dev/sdc: (PATA slave) |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 164 MB in 3.03 seconds = 54.21 MB/sec |
61 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.02 seconds = 55.04 MB/sec |
62 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 166 MB in 3.01 seconds = 55.10 MB/sec |
63 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 158 MB in 3.01 seconds = 52.41 MB/sec |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > /dev/sdd: (SATA backup drive) |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.55 MB/sec |
68 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 312 MB in 3.01 seconds = 103.67 MB/sec |
69 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 308 MB in 3.01 seconds = 102.34 MB/sec |
70 |
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 314 MB in 3.00 seconds = 104.60 MB/sec |
71 |
> > |
72 |
> > The system drive throughput varies a lot, depending on other I/O. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> Those look ok to me, except that I would expect SATA-drives to be |
75 |
> faster then PATA drives. |
76 |
|
77 |
Well, they are, except for the sometimes busy system drive. And by now I |
78 |
get similar results as for the 2nd SATA drive, throughput is between 90 |
79 |
and 110 MB/sec. |
80 |
|
81 |
|
82 |
> > > You're running KDE4, guess you went for the default and use mysql |
83 |
> > > for "app- office/akonadi-server". |
84 |
> > > |
85 |
> > > I switched to using "sqlite" for this due to issues getting it to |
86 |
> > > work with mysql. I think this might help there? |
87 |
> > |
88 |
> > So I only have to set the sqlite use flag and remove the mysql use |
89 |
> > flag for akonadi-server? I'm doing this now. And this also gives an |
90 |
> > example for what is going on here: |
91 |
> And unset mysql. |
92 |
> There is one issue that needs to be resolved manually with getting it |
93 |
> to work with sqlite. |
94 |
> See: |
95 |
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-834883-view- |
96 |
> next.html?sid=3ae77f5bfba5e006e8745eedb4b6cfc4 |
97 |
> |
98 |
> Here is the bit that will solve the problem: |
99 |
> -- |
100 |
> $ cd ~/.local/share/akonadi |
101 |
> $ sqlite3 akonadi.db |
102 |
> sqlite> INSERT INTO ResourceTable (name, isVirtual) VALUES |
103 |
> ('akonadi_search_resource', 1); |
104 |
> sqlite> .exit |
105 |
|
106 |
I did nothing about this by now, but I probabyl will soon. Thanks for the |
107 |
tip! |
108 |
I also had trouble with akonadi in the past, and it still gives |
109 |
warnings/errors at every startup, but at least it seems to work now. |
110 |
|
111 |
|
112 |
> > > Disk I/O is, in my experience, a very common cause for |
113 |
> > > "freeze-ups". Can you test with unencrypted disks to see if the |
114 |
> > > issue occurs then as well? |
115 |
> > |
116 |
> > Yes, I can do this. It's some work, but I tried so much, why not |
117 |
> > this. I have some free space, and already have written a backup |
118 |
> > script that automatically creates LVM snapshots, decrypts them, and |
119 |
> > backs it up, so I can do this from the running system. |
120 |
> |
121 |
> Ok, am interested to see if running unencrypted actually has benefits |
122 |
> here. |
123 |
|
124 |
Me too, but as things are quite faster now already, the priority for this |
125 |
task is much lower than it was yesterday :) |
126 |
|
127 |
|
128 |
> > > Can you post the result of: "ps axu"? |
129 |
> > > This will give an indication which processes are running and using |
130 |
> > > a lot of memory. |
131 |
> > |
132 |
> > First, here is free -m: |
133 |
> > total used free shared buffers |
134 |
> > cached |
135 |
> > |
136 |
> > Mem: 3452 3225 226 0 54 |
137 |
> > 325 -/+ buffers/cache: 2844 607 |
138 |
> > Swap: 4094 935 3159 |
139 |
> > |
140 |
> > And here the output of top, sorted by memory. I think it is a similar |
141 |
> > output to ps axu, but more condensed and better readable via mail. |
142 |
> > The full ps aux output, sorted by memory, is in [2]. |
143 |
> |
144 |
> <snipped top> |
145 |
> |
146 |
> > X takes an awful lot, then comes java, which is running only for my |
147 |
> > tvbrowser. And many many chrome processes. |
148 |
> |
149 |
> How many web browser windows do you have open? :) |
150 |
|
151 |
wonko@weird ~ $ ps ax | grep chromium-browser | wc -l |
152 |
42 |
153 |
|
154 |
Well, that's tabs, not windows. Chromium uses one process for each tab. |
155 |
I'm not sure if I really want to use Chromium, I started using it because |
156 |
of a nasty konqueror bug that made KDE freeze occasionally, but it seems |
157 |
to be fixed now. |
158 |
|
159 |
> Also, do you have file indexing enabled? |
160 |
|
161 |
Do you mean Strigi/Nepomuk? I just turned it on again today. It never |
162 |
worked, but crashed. In the last days I investigated this further and |
163 |
filed two bugs about this, and they were already fixed. I'm running the |
164 |
git version now, and so far it seems to work fine, but my home directory |
165 |
is not fully indexed yet. And there were also issues with my music folder, |
166 |
let's see if indexing this will still make strigi crash. |
167 |
I should have done this before - I am waiting over a year now for a fixed |
168 |
version, but apparently few people if any have those crashes, so I had to |
169 |
report them myself. |
170 |
At the moment it's indexing, but so far system load is not very high. |
171 |
That's much better than a year ago when I used it the last time. |
172 |
|
173 |
|
174 |
> > > > Now I am out of ideas. I really hope someone here has one. I |
175 |
> > > > cannot work with this system any more when emerges are going on. |
176 |
> > > |
177 |
> > > Had similar issues with a desktop machine myself, managed to kill |
178 |
> > > some "features" that I wasn't using and this solved most of the |
179 |
> > > problems. |
180 |
> > |
181 |
> > I hope I can say this soon, too. |
182 |
> |
183 |
> In my experience, X uses more memory when a lot of windows are open. |
184 |
> And yours uses about 4 times as much as mine. |
185 |
> But then again, I don't have much running at the moment. |
186 |
|
187 |
I like to have many things open. With enough memory it's no problem. |
188 |
Unless you are using ati-drivers, that is. |
189 |
|
190 |
Wonko |