belkin bulldog ups monitor vs 2.6.21-rc2

belkin bulldog ups monitor vs 2.6.21-rc2

[Gene Heskett]

Greetings;

I just rebooted to 2.6.21-rc2 and noted that getting x up and running was 
about 15 seconds longer than usual.  When it got a bash shell going I 
went to it and ran htop which showed that the bulldog monitor was taking 
90% of the cpu.  Killed it, then restarted it, but when I ran the gui 
which ran fine and then stopped the gui, the daemon once again went hog 
wild and had to be killed,  and I'm losing my kmail composer focus for 30 
seconds at a time now that amanda is making her nightly run.

There is nothing in the log about it other than from xinetd as it ran the 
amanda server stuff.

Not quite ready for prime time methinks.  Using the ck scheduler, this is 
terrible performance, virtually no multitasking.  Back to 2.6.20-ck1 in 
the morning if it lives the rest of the night.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re: belkin bulldog ups monitor vs 2.6.21-rc2

[Con Kolivas]

On 02/03/07, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> I just rebooted to 2.6.21-rc2 and noted that getting x up and running was
> about 15 seconds longer than usual.  When it got a bash shell going I
> went to it and ran htop which showed that the bulldog monitor was taking
> 90% of the cpu.  Killed it, then restarted it, but when I ran the gui
> which ran fine and then stopped the gui, the daemon once again went hog
> wild and had to be killed,  and I'm losing my kmail composer focus for 30
> seconds at a time now that amanda is making her nightly run.
>
> There is nothing in the log about it other than from xinetd as it ran the
> amanda server stuff.
>
> Not quite ready for prime time methinks.  Using the ck scheduler, this is
> terrible performance, virtually no multitasking.  Back to 2.6.20-ck1 in
> the morning if it lives the rest of the night.

HI Gene.

I'm not sure if you're saying here that the performance is terrible on
2.6.21-rc2 only with the -ck scheduler, or only 2.6.21-rc2, or that
2.6.20-ck1 is terrible or that it fixes the problem.  Can you please
clarify this?

Regards,
-ck

Re: belkin bulldog ups monitor vs 2.6.21-rc2

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 02 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>On 02/03/07, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Greetings;
>>
>> I just rebooted to 2.6.21-rc2 and noted that getting x up and running
>> was about 15 seconds longer than usual.  When it got a bash shell
>> going I went to it and ran htop which showed that the bulldog monitor
>> was taking 90% of the cpu.  Killed it, then restarted it, but when I
>> ran the gui which ran fine and then stopped the gui, the daemon once
>> again went hog wild and had to be killed,  and I'm losing my kmail
>> composer focus for 30 seconds at a time now that amanda is making her
>> nightly run.
>>
>> There is nothing in the log about it other than from xinetd as it ran
>> the amanda server stuff.
>>
>> Not quite ready for prime time methinks.  Using the ck scheduler, this
>> is terrible performance, virtually no multitasking.  Back to
>> 2.6.20-ck1 in the morning if it lives the rest of the night.
>
>HI Gene.
>
>I'm not sure if you're saying here that the performance is terrible on
>2.6.21-rc2 only with the -ck scheduler, or only 2.6.21-rc2, or that
>2.6.20-ck1 is terrible or that it fixes the problem.  Can you please
>clarify this?

I miss-spoke above now that I read it again, sorry Con.  I think I thought 
my fingers had put 'Comparing' in front of the 'Using' above. This time 
of the night, my mind has been known to be running a chapter or more 
ahead of (or in some cases behind) my fingers.

2.6.20-ck1 runs great, 2.6.21-rc2 was not only a dog, it fed amanda a 
bunch of lsd via bad data from tar, so tar when told to do a level 1 
while 21-rc2 (without your patch) was running, it actually did a level 0, 
and predictably ran out of vtape.  /usr/pix didn't change over 7GB of its 
contents overnight, in fact nothing changed there yesterday, but tar sure 
went on a rampage.

Sorry about the confusion.  I'm back in 2.6.20-ck1 and everythings cool.

>Regards,
>-ck

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re: belkin bulldog ups monitor vs 2.6.21-rc2

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 02 March 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
>Greetings;
>
>I just rebooted to 2.6.21-rc2 and noted that getting x up and running
> was about 15 seconds longer than usual.  When it got a bash shell going
> I went to it and ran htop which showed that the bulldog monitor was
> taking 90% of the cpu.  Killed it, then restarted it, but when I ran
> the gui which ran fine and then stopped the gui, the daemon once again
> went hog wild and had to be killed,  and I'm losing my kmail composer
> focus for 30 seconds at a time now that amanda is making her nightly
> run.
>
>There is nothing in the log about it other than from xinetd as it ran
> the amanda server stuff.
>
>Not quite ready for prime time methinks.  Using the ck scheduler, this
> is terrible performance, virtually no multitasking.  Back to 2.6.20-ck1
> in the morning if it lives the rest of the night.

Addendum, amanda finished early, it seems tar thought every level was a 
level 0, so it ran out of storage after only 3 dle's were processed and 
backed up.  There are about 25 dle's.  It tried to put 11GB on an 8GB 
vtape, which because it was a vtape, it could do.

So it appears something in the ext3 filesystem is sadly miss-informing tar 
when it does the estimate scan vs doing the real file reading.  Or the 
scan is updating the ctime?

I'm back on 2.6.20-ck1 & everything is copacetic again.  I'll find out if 
the filesystem is damaged tomorrow night cause if the ctimes are all 
screwed up, amanda will effectively be starting from scratch.  That is 
not exactly a Good Thing(TM).

I did find the ls -lt command, and the filesystem looks ok timewise when 
rebooted now.  I have no more ready clues without your able questions to 
guide me on this.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)