Difference between revisions of "Talk:Improving performance"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Remove closed discussions.)
(Watchdog section: re)
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Mkfs does not work ==
+
== Watchdog section ==
This doesn't work:
 
mkfs.xfs -l internal,lazy-count=1 size=128m -d agcount=2 /dev/sdxx
 
--[[User:Jkd.luca|Jkd.luca]] 17:21, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
 
  
== The desktop switcheroo ==
+
I've added a '''watchdogs''' section.
 +
Tell me what do you think about? --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 10:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
:Is it really recommended to disable watchdog services? See [https://linux.die.net/man/8/watchdog watchdog(8)]. Even when running a 'simple' desktop, it needs to monitor a lot of things. Don't forget most MB use a watchdog service. How to know this is really safe? [[User:Francoism|Francoism]] ([[User talk:Francoism|talk]]) 10:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
::1. I've never had a problem, see also: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=163768 --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 11:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
::2. Your watchdog is related to the specific program ''watchdog'' (https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/watchdog/), a standalone program, not installed by default, not dependency of other packages. --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 11:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
:::You are correct about the watchdog package, but it is just to give you an example of what a watchdog does. It also depends on the hardware and software that's in use. To give you an example, an USB device that causes issues, will be unable to recover if no watchdog is in use. It can also lead to unexpected reboots (a watchdog is able to perform recovery operations) and maybe even hardware damage (see temperature monitoring). The one in the kernel are linked with the CPU/MB it seems, think they are created for some reason. ;) [[User:Francoism|Francoism]] ([[User talk:Francoism|talk]]) 11:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
::::No, I don't think so. Low-level hardware interrupt are handled by low-level software, the BIOS/EFI.
 +
::::For what watchdogs do, read the first and third link.
 +
::::I'm with you that "if it exists, there is a good reason, so...", but this doesn't mean everybody need it.
 +
::::PS: What I've written on the wiki is the sum/product of what I have understand/learn about kernel watchdog; an issue started time ago while for the first time I've read about "NMI_watchdog" in the dmesg; the links provided at the end of my edit are the sources from which I extrapolated those information; if you have other sources, share, I'm here to learn in primis.  --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 14:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
:::::[https://gist.github.com/lahwaacz/5bef7a353cd8cbe49164d2bf4efd47fa Here] is what I get from time to time after plugging someting into my only USB3 port. After that happens, I need to reboot to make it work again. It's definitely tied up to the hardware driver and I'm not really interested in finding out what might happen without the watchdog. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
::::::Please, explain better your experience, because if you get an hardware problem that stuck your system, the '''watchdog''' should recognize this situation and it will '''automatically''' reboot the system. Without a watchdog the stuck system will continue to go (even if stuck) until you '''manually''' reboot your machine. This is the purpose of a watchdog. This is why it is not a mandatory piece of a laptop/desktop system where user can operate manually (while the user can do this in an embedded device...). --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
::::::Unless you have set {{ic|RuntimeWatchdogSec}} in {{ic|/etc/systemd/system.conf}}, watchdog is not doing anything for you in this case. All watchdog does in an Arch install by default is check if a shutdown has proceeded properly after 10 minutes ({{ic|1=ShutdownWatchdogSec=10m}}).  -- [[User:Rdeckard|Rdeckard]] ([[User_talk:Rdeckard|talk]]) 21:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  
Section "The desktop switcheroo" does not make sense. [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 16:35, 7 November 2009 (EST)
+
:Since you've put it on the [[Improving performance]] page, what is the performance improvement in practice? -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 11:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
: Light weight desktop does improve performance of running app. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
+
::I recorded a decrease in boot and shutdown time of about 0.1 sec over a 2.0 secs boot (systemd-analyze);
 
+
::both hardware and software watchdogs are disabled; the later is 'software', so I believe it "consumes" CPU...I have no evidence about it. If you have it, share here
== LZO for btrfs ==
+
::PS: What I've written on the wiki is the sum/product of what I have understand/learn about kernel watchdog; an issue started time ago while for the first time I've read about "NMI_watchdog" in the dmesg; the links provided at the end of my edit are the sources from which I extrapolated those information; if you have other sources, share, I'm here to learn in primis. --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 14:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I read about LZO compression and space_cache for btrfs lately: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=btrfs_space_cache
+
:::And how does that difference compare to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation standard deviation] of your measured data? -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
--[[User:Longint|Longint]] 18:53, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
+
::::These are already ''mean'' values and they are enough for me. If you have an easy way to compute a more detailed report, please tell me. Or better, try by yourself and share your results! --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
:I like the section and think it should be added somewhere in the Wiki. I think for now this is a reasonable place since the focus is on disabling something that may be consuming resources unnecessarily. Additionally at least 1 user has reported that the {{ic|nowatchdog}} kernel parameter did not work for them [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=221239] and that blacklisting the module was the only way to disable watchdog.  -- [[User:Rdeckard|Rdeckard]] ([[User_talk:Rdeckard|talk]]) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
::Thank you, I will update the section accordingly --[[User:NTia89|nTia89]] ([[User talk:NTia89|talk]]) 14:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:06, 30 December 2016

Watchdog section

I've added a watchdogs section. Tell me what do you think about? --nTia89 (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it really recommended to disable watchdog services? See watchdog(8). Even when running a 'simple' desktop, it needs to monitor a lot of things. Don't forget most MB use a watchdog service. How to know this is really safe? Francoism (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
1. I've never had a problem, see also: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=163768 --nTia89 (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Your watchdog is related to the specific program watchdog (https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/watchdog/), a standalone program, not installed by default, not dependency of other packages. --nTia89 (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You are correct about the watchdog package, but it is just to give you an example of what a watchdog does. It also depends on the hardware and software that's in use. To give you an example, an USB device that causes issues, will be unable to recover if no watchdog is in use. It can also lead to unexpected reboots (a watchdog is able to perform recovery operations) and maybe even hardware damage (see temperature monitoring). The one in the kernel are linked with the CPU/MB it seems, think they are created for some reason. ;) Francoism (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. Low-level hardware interrupt are handled by low-level software, the BIOS/EFI.
For what watchdogs do, read the first and third link.
I'm with you that "if it exists, there is a good reason, so...", but this doesn't mean everybody need it.
PS: What I've written on the wiki is the sum/product of what I have understand/learn about kernel watchdog; an issue started time ago while for the first time I've read about "NMI_watchdog" in the dmesg; the links provided at the end of my edit are the sources from which I extrapolated those information; if you have other sources, share, I'm here to learn in primis. --nTia89 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is what I get from time to time after plugging someting into my only USB3 port. After that happens, I need to reboot to make it work again. It's definitely tied up to the hardware driver and I'm not really interested in finding out what might happen without the watchdog. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Please, explain better your experience, because if you get an hardware problem that stuck your system, the watchdog should recognize this situation and it will automatically reboot the system. Without a watchdog the stuck system will continue to go (even if stuck) until you manually reboot your machine. This is the purpose of a watchdog. This is why it is not a mandatory piece of a laptop/desktop system where user can operate manually (while the user can do this in an embedded device...). --nTia89 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Unless you have set RuntimeWatchdogSec in /etc/systemd/system.conf, watchdog is not doing anything for you in this case. All watchdog does in an Arch install by default is check if a shutdown has proceeded properly after 10 minutes (ShutdownWatchdogSec=10m). -- Rdeckard (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you've put it on the Improving performance page, what is the performance improvement in practice? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I recorded a decrease in boot and shutdown time of about 0.1 sec over a 2.0 secs boot (systemd-analyze);
both hardware and software watchdogs are disabled; the later is 'software', so I believe it "consumes" CPU...I have no evidence about it. If you have it, share here
PS: What I've written on the wiki is the sum/product of what I have understand/learn about kernel watchdog; an issue started time ago while for the first time I've read about "NMI_watchdog" in the dmesg; the links provided at the end of my edit are the sources from which I extrapolated those information; if you have other sources, share, I'm here to learn in primis. --nTia89 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
And how does that difference compare to the standard deviation of your measured data? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
These are already mean values and they are enough for me. If you have an easy way to compute a more detailed report, please tell me. Or better, try by yourself and share your results! --nTia89 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I like the section and think it should be added somewhere in the Wiki. I think for now this is a reasonable place since the focus is on disabling something that may be consuming resources unnecessarily. Additionally at least 1 user has reported that the nowatchdog kernel parameter did not work for them [1] and that blacklisting the module was the only way to disable watchdog. -- Rdeckard (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will update the section accordingly --nTia89 (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)