LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Ubuntu
User Name
Password
Ubuntu This forum is for the discussion of Ubuntu Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2012, 02:42 PM   #16
williepabon
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0

TQUOTE=anomie;4620105][ Just a side note: you might consider changing the thread title to something like, "Read performance issue with Ubuntu 10.04". It took me awhile to figure out what is going on here, especially given a title about verifying OS "health". ]

It would interesting to see the results of the following, from both 10.04 and 10.10 (with appropriate drive attached):

Code:
$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdc
[/QUOTE]

The results are on Post #12 of this thread. Thanks.
 
Old 03-06-2012, 03:08 PM   #17
anomie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora
Posts: 3,935
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Those are performance tests, and aren't what I was asking for.
 
Old 03-06-2012, 03:58 PM   #18
widget
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Location: S.E. Montana
Distribution: Debian Testing, Stable, Sid and Manjaro, Mageia 3, LMDE
Posts: 2,628

Rep: Reputation: 497Reputation: 497Reputation: 497Reputation: 497Reputation: 497
I don't know what his external is. It may be that it is not fully supported by hdparm. Mine isn't.

It is an external sata enclosure.
 
Old 03-06-2012, 06:23 PM   #19
williepabon
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by williepabon View Post
TQUOTE=anomie;4620105][ Just a side note: you might consider changing the thread title to something like, "Read performance issue with Ubuntu 10.04". It took me awhile to figure out what is going on here, especially given a title about verifying OS "health". ]

It would interesting to see the results of the following, from both 10.04 and 10.10 (with appropriate drive attached):

Code:
$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdc
The results are on Post #12 of this thread. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Running your code as specified returns the following:

For USB memory stick with Ubuntu 10.10:
Code:
williepabon@Precision-WorkStation-670:~$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdc

[sudo] password for williepabon:

/dev/sdc:
HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(identify) failed: Invalid exchange
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 974/255/63, sectors = 15663104, start = 0
For external hard drive connected to another USB port:

Code:
williepabon@Precision-WorkStation-670:~$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdd


/dev/sdd:
HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(identify) failed: Invalid exchange
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 19457/255/63, sectors = 312581808, start = 0
Be aware that these results were obtained while running Ubuntu 10.10 on the memory stick. If you need the above results while running Ubuntu 10.04 from the external hard drive, please let me know.
Thanks.

Last edited by williepabon; 03-06-2012 at 06:28 PM. Reason: Adding code tags
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:57 PM   #20
anomie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora
Posts: 3,935
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Revisiting the facts (in case I've misunderstood):
  • You're running Ubuntu 10.04 from live (USB) media
  • You're running Ubuntu 10.10 from another live (USB) media
  • Read tests from 10.04 are substantially slower than read tests from 10.10
  • Read tests were conducted against the same device

Is that all correct? (Please correct if not. Getting this much straight is important to proceed logically.)

I'd like to compare and contrast the results of an hdparm(8) query from both environments. Try the command I posted from both. I am looking for something obvious, like readahead being disabled in your 10.04 environment.

Depending on the answer to that puzzle, we can try some direct device read tests to see if the results differ significantly. (By throwing the -T option into the mix, you may be adding complexity. I'm not clear what hdparm(8) does when both options are specified.)

Last edited by anomie; 03-06-2012 at 09:59 PM.
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:08 AM   #21
williepabon
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomie View Post
Revisiting the facts (in case I've misunderstood):
  • You're running Ubuntu 10.04 from live (USB) media
  • You're running Ubuntu 10.10 from another live (USB) media
  • Read tests from 10.04 are substantially slower than read tests from 10.10
  • Read tests were conducted against the same device

Is that all correct? (Please correct if not. Getting this much straight is important to proceed logically.)

I'd like to compare and contrast the results of an hdparm(8) query from both environments. Try the command I posted from both. I am looking for something obvious, like readahead being disabled in your 10.04 environment.

Depending on the answer to that puzzle, we can try some direct device read tests to see if the results differ significantly. (By throwing the -T option into the mix, you may be adding complexity. I'm not clear what hdparm(8) does when both options are specified.)
anomie:

Thanks for answering. Will try to answer to he best of my knowledge.

1- You're running Ubuntu 10.04 from live (USB) media.
Not really. I did a complete install of Ubuntu 10.04 on an external hard drive that is connected to my pc via USB. I've been booting my pc from this drive for the past two years without a problem, until I installed more RAM.

2- You're running Ubuntu 10.10 from another live (USB) media
I also did a complete install of Ubuntu 10.10 on a USB memory stick (just to learn how it is done), and boot from it at times to compare features and differences, if sometime in the future I decide to upgrade my main installation (external hard drive)

3- Read tests from 10.04 are substantially slower than read tests from 10.10
Yes. This happens when I boot from the 10.04 device (hard drive). When I do the test from the 10.10 stick, everything is OK.

4- Read tests were conducted against the same device
Yes, but more than that. Booting from the 10.04, I conducted read tests to the hard drive itself, but also to devices connected to other USB ports. For that, I connected my memory stick. The readings are also slow. Apparently, the problem affects all USB ports on the pc. I think, that's what my Post #12 says.

I'm writing this post from a different machine, different location, but In a short while will send you the results of the hdparm you requested. Thanks.

Additional info:
Post #19 shows hdparm wihile being boot up with memory stick running Ubuntu 10.10.
The following is running hdparm while being boot up from my hard drive running 10.04 and having the memory stick also connected.


For hard drive (Ubuntu 10.04)
Code:
williepabon@WP-WrkStation:~$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdc
[sudo] password for williepabon:

/dev/sdc:
HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(identify) failed: Invalid exchange
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 19457/255/63, sectors = 312581808, start = 0


For memory stick:
Code:
williepabon@WP-WrkStation:~$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdd
/dev/sdd:
HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(identify) failed: Invalid exchange
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 974/255/63, sectors = 15663104, start = 0

Last edited by williepabon; 03-07-2012 at 08:53 AM. Reason: Providing more information
 
Old 03-07-2012, 12:42 PM   #22
anomie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora
Posts: 3,935
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I'm a little puzzled by the problem you're describing. The addition of RAM (and immediate, noticeable differences in 10.04 performance) seems like a good clue. But I'd imagine you were not benchmarking I/O performance until after you noticed 10.04 "slow down" substantially.

Are you willing to temporarily remove the new RAM and see how it affects performance within your 10.04 environment? That would eliminate - or implicate - the new RAM as the problem cause.

As I mentioned, I was hoping the hdparm(8) query of the devices would provide us with a good lead. It didn't.

There are a number of additional threads we could pursue, but they are more evidence gathering rather than necessarily leading us to root cause. For instance, observe vmstat -d output while running your tests (in both 10.04 and 10.10, and compare results). And observe top(1) output to try to identify whether hdparm(8) is using an unusual amount of memory in 10.04 (again, you'd need 10.10 results to compare against).
 
Old 03-07-2012, 01:14 PM   #23
anomie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora
Posts: 3,935
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Also: dumb question -- do the Ubuntu 10.04 device and Ubuntu 10.10 device both support the same USB versions (2.0, 3.0..)?
 
Old 03-08-2012, 07:36 AM   #24
williepabon
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomie View Post
I'm a little puzzled by the problem you're describing. The addition of RAM (and immediate, noticeable differences in 10.04 performance) seems like a good clue. But I'd imagine you were not benchmarking I/O performance until after you noticed 10.04 "slow down" substantially.

Are you willing to temporarily remove the new RAM and see how it affects performance within your 10.04 environment? That would eliminate - or implicate - the new RAM as the problem cause.
Anomie:
Other people have also suggested to remove the new RAM installed to see if the problem corrrects. I haven't done it yet because:
  • I did a memory test with a diagnostic program from DELL (My pc is from Dell)
  • My pc works fine with Windows XP, no problems with memory
  • My pc works fine when booting with Ubuntu 10.10 memory stick, no speed problems
  • My pc works fine when booting with Ubunty 11.10 memory stick, no speed problems

Regardless, I'm going to try your suggestion, this weekend (I use the machine a lot during weekdays). Will let you know what happens. Thanks
wp
 
Old 03-09-2012, 08:50 AM   #25
williepabon
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by williepabon View Post
Anomie:
Other people have also suggested to remove the new RAM installed to see if the problem corrrects. I haven't done it yet because:
  • I did a memory test with a diagnostic program from DELL (My pc is from Dell)
  • My pc works fine with Windows XP, no problems with memory
  • My pc works fine when booting with Ubuntu 10.10 memory stick, no speed problems
  • My pc works fine when booting with Ubunty 11.10 memory stick, no speed problems

Regardless, I'm going to try your suggestion, this weekend (I use the machine a lot during weekdays). Will let you know what happens. Thanks
wp
Anomie:

I decided to do the memory investigation today. But before doing it, to check out any possibility of hardware issues on the hard drive, I did the following: (1) purchased a new hard drive enclosure and moved my hard drive to this one, (2) purchased a new USB cable and used it to connect my hard drive/enclosure setup to a different USB port on my pc.

Then, I performed speed tests with 1 Gig, 2 Gigs and 3 Gigs of RAM with my Ubuntu 10.04 OS. Ubuntu 10.04 worked well when the pc had 1 Gig or 2 Gigs of RAM. When I increased to 3 Gigs, it slowed down to a crawl. I can't understand the relationship between an increase of 1 Gig and the effect it has in Ubuntu 10.04. This doesn't happens with Ubuntu 10.10 and 11.10. Unfortunately for me, Ubuntu 10.04 is my principal work operating system. So, I need a solution for this. Thanks for the help.
 
Old 03-09-2012, 09:29 AM   #26
anomie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora
Posts: 3,935
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Fascinating. The good news is: you can describe the exact problem (complete with Ubuntu version and RAM amount), and you can reproduce it easily.

I'd be curious to know what's happening with memory on your 10.04 system with the extra RAM installed. (You can observe with top(1)). And I'd also be curious to know whether there are any ominous looking errors reported in /var/log/messages with the extra RAM installed.

If those offer no compelling new clues, I'd recommend posting your problem to Launchpad:

https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu

Ubuntu 10.04 is LTS, so hopefully a knowledgeable developer or tester is willing to speak to the issue you're seeing. Please post back on this thread if you get a fix -- or at least a good explanation. (That will help the next person who runs into this problem.)
 
Old 03-09-2012, 06:24 PM   #27
widget
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Location: S.E. Montana
Distribution: Debian Testing, Stable, Sid and Manjaro, Mageia 3, LMDE
Posts: 2,628

Rep: Reputation: 497Reputation: 497Reputation: 497Reputation: 497Reputation: 497
Yes, a more complete picture now and it is great to have.

I know that 10.04 will run on more than 2 gigs of ram with no trouble. My wife uses it on her box with 4 and it would run on mine up through the RC version in 10.04-testing on 3 (the final wouldn't boot and still won't because plymouth became incompatible with my hardware).

top would be a good thing to run but I am not sure it will tell you anything new.

The suggestion to take this to launchpad questions is a great one. It will at least spread the bafflement around.
 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:43 AM   #28
tommcd
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Philadelphia PA USA
Distribution: Lubuntu, Slackware
Posts: 2,230

Rep: Reputation: 293Reputation: 293Reputation: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by williepabon View Post
Then, I performed speed tests with 1 Gig, 2 Gigs and 3 Gigs of RAM with my Ubuntu 10.04 OS. Ubuntu 10.04 worked well when the pc had 1 Gig or 2 Gigs of RAM. When I increased to 3 Gigs, it slowed down to a crawl.
Try running memtest from the Ubuntu grub boot menu on each memory stick, installed one at a time. Run memtest for at least an hour or two (or longer) to see if there are any errors for each stick of memory.
This will at least verify that each memory stick is good and help to rule out a hardware problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by williepabon View Post
I know that RAM is not an issue because I checked it with the utility that exists on my Windows system. By the way, If I boot my system with Ubuntu 10.10 or 11.10 I don't have a USB speed problem.
Even though you checked the RAM from Windows, since you have been grappling with this for almost a week now it would not hurt to spend a few hours running memtest from your Ubuntu boot menu to test each stick of RAM.

Last edited by tommcd; 03-11-2012 at 09:44 AM.
 
Old 03-12-2012, 08:48 PM   #29
williepabon
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by widget View Post
Yes, a more complete picture now and it is great to have.

I know that 10.04 will run on more than 2 gigs of ram with no trouble. My wife uses it on her box with 4 and it would run on mine up through the RC version in 10.04-testing on 3 (the final wouldn't boot and still won't because plymouth became incompatible with my hardware).

top would be a good thing to run but I am not sure it will tell you anything new.

The suggestion to take this to launchpad questions is a great one. It will at least spread the bafflement around.
Widget:
Following your advice, I took my problem to the guys at Launchpad. It is Question #190306. If you can, read what's there and the comments from the people who answered. I implemented some of their suggestions, but none have worked so far, as I documented. Changing to a different version of the OS (as some have suggested) is like admitting that the software is at fault and that this problem does not have a solution.
 
Old 03-12-2012, 08:57 PM   #30
williepabon
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 96

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommcd View Post
Try running memtest from the Ubuntu grub boot menu on each memory stick, installed one at a time. Run memtest for at least an hour or two (or longer) to see if there are any errors for each stick of memory.
This will at least verify that each memory stick is good and help to rule out a hardware problem.

Even though you checked the RAM from Windows, since you have been grappling with this for almost a week now it would not hurt to spend a few hours running memtest from your Ubuntu boot menu to test each stick of RAM.
Tommcd:

On my post #25 I describe the tests that I made. I have on my pc 2 512 Meg chips and 2 1 Gig chips for a total of 3 Gigs. As I explained above, when I put 1 Gig or 2 Gigs (using the 2 1Gig chips) I have no speed problems. Everything works OK. It is when I go up to 3 Gigs that the OS slows down. Thanks for your comments.

Last edited by williepabon; 03-12-2012 at 08:59 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: GNOME Tweak Tool - A tool for changing specialised or advanced GNOME3 settings LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-12-2011 11:50 PM
Cross-tool 0.42: Tool-chain compilation process fail ueagle Linux From Scratch 2 03-26-2011 03:43 AM
LXer: GSmartControl - Useful Hard Disk Drive Health Inspection Tool For Linux LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-21-2010 02:40 PM
openssl ssl error code 14090086 verify the CA cert is ok / certificate verify failed acummings Slackware 14 02-27-2009 01:51 AM
LXer: Strategy & Management: Issues and innovations: Our health is your health LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-13-2006 05:33 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Ubuntu

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration