• Posts

  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

27135 profile views

tkaiser's Achievements

  1. OMFG. You're so busy 'reviewing' stuff that you have no time becoming familiar with the basics you babble about.
  2. Who's talking about system administrators? It's about Armbian users now encouraged to rely on ZFS based on proposals at the top post in this thread and eg. support for ZFS in Armbian's bloated motd output. Are these users aware of the two main problems putting their ZFS pools or the data inside at risk? Are they aware of the 'correct write barrier semantics' issue especially with crappy storage hardware as it's definitely more rule than exception with SBC (some random USB-to-SATA bridge combined with freezes or power losses might be recipe for disaster with both ZFS and btrfs)? Are they aware that if they install ZFS via DKMS they might end up with something like this (a kernel update will be rushed out for certain boards, building zfs or spl modules will fail in certain combinations and affected users will realize only after next reboot for the kernel update to take effect that their pools are unavailable). How much testing does each and every kernel update receive? You know the answer just like me. And it's easy to understand the difference with Ubuntu or Debian on amd64 where there are only just a few kernel variants that can be tested through with reasonable efforts) And then there's another issue called 'confusing redundancy with backup' which affects an awful lot of home users. They think if they do some sort of RAID their data would be save. In situations where crappy storage hardware with old filesystems will just result in some unnoticed silent data corruption using advanced attempts like ZFS or btrfs can result in the whole pool/filesystem becoming inaccessible. While professionals then restore from backup the average home users will just cry. If users are encouraged to rely on a certain FS implementation based on FUD (data losses with btrfs) or theoretical superiority '(the guys at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' for example) that's a bit unfair since they're affected by practical limitations of the hardware Armbian is mostly used on and the practical limitations of another group of guys. Btrfs on the other hand is built right into the kernel and receives a lot more testing than the ZFS situation at Armbian allows for (dealing already with +30 kernel branches and complaining about having no resources constantly since years). BTW: thank you, I edited my post above and exchanged ARM with Armbian.
  3. Guess why you hear so often about data loss with btrfs? Three main reasons: 1) Shooting the messenger: Putting a btrfs on top of hardware raid, mdraid or lvm is as 'great' as doing the same with ZFS but 'Linux experts' and NAS vendors did it and still do it. Data corruption at the mdraid layer resulting in a broken btrfs on top and guess who's blamed then? 2) btrfs lives inside the kernel and as such you need a recent kernel version to escape old and well known bugs. Now look at kernel versions in popular distros like Debian and you get the problem. With ZFS that's different, most recent ZoL versions still run well with horribly outdated kernels. Hobbyists look into btrfs wiki, see that a certain issue has been fixed recently so they're gonna use it forgetting that the 'everything outdated as hell' distro (AKA Debian) they're using is still on an ancient 4.9 kernel or even worse. 3) Choice of hardware. ZFS is most of the time used on more reliable hardware than btrfs and that's mostly due to some BS spread by selected FreeNAS/TrueNAS forum members who created the two urban myths that 'running ZFS without ECC RAM will kill your data' (nope) and 'you'll need at least 8GB of RAM for ZFS' (also BS, I'm running lots of VMs with ZFS with as less as 1GB). While both myths are technically irrelevant a lot of people believe into and therefore invest in better hardware. Check which mainboards feature ECC memory and you'll realize that exactly those mainboards are the ones with proper onboard storage controllers. If you believe you need at least 8 GB of RAM this also rules out a lot of crappy hardware (like eg. vast majority of SBCs). The main technical challenge for majority of modern filesystem attempts (even for journaled ext4) is correct write-barrier semantics (more on this in the referenced github issue above). Without those both ZFS and btrfs will fail in the same way. So using an SBC with flaky USB host controller combined with crappy USB-to-SATA controller in external enclosure is recipe for desaster with both ZFS and btrfs. ZFS is more mature than btrfs but guess what has happened when ZFS was rather new over a decade ago: people lost their pools due to broken write-barrier semantics caused by erratic HBAs and drive cache behavior (reporting back 'yeah, I've written the sector to spinning rust' while keeping data in some internal cache and after a power loss the pool was gone). The last time I wasted time with ZFS on ARM it was a true desaster. Over a year ago I tried to run several ODROID HC2 as Znapzend targets for a bunch of fileservers but always ran into stability issues (freezes) after a couple of days/weeks. Switched to btrfs just to check whether all the HC2 might have a hardware problem: a year later realized by accident that the HC2's in question all had an uptime of 300 days or above (I stopped doing kernel updates on isolated Armbian machines since Igor bricked already way too much of my boards over the past years). Do I prefer btrfs over ZFS? Nope. Being a real ZFS fanboi almost all the storage implementations here and at customers are based on ZFS. On x86 hardware due to not only relying on OpenZFS team but also the guys at Canonical who care about 'ZFS correctly built and fully working with the kernel in question' (on Debian installations pulling in the Proxmox kernel which is latest Ubuntu kernel with additional tweaks/fixes). And that's the main difference compared to the situation with Armbian. There is no such team that takes care about you being able to access your ZFS pools flawlessly after the next kernel update. Which is the reason why the choice of filesystem (btrfs or ZFS) at my place depends on x86 (ZFS) or ARM (btrfs). And that's not because of the CPU architecture but solely due to with x86 being able to rely on professionals who take care about the updates they roll out vs. situation on ARM with a team of hobbyists who still try harder and harder to provide OS images for as much different SBC as possible so it's absolutely impossible to properly test/support all of them. Playground mode.
  4. The BPi M5 is just an ODROID C4 clone (check also the serial console output in the wall of text above) so simply look there. They even took the same VL817 hub (a way better choice than the Genesis Logic thingy on the N2+) but of course decided to change the power circuitry so that their users suffer from the usual Banana undervoltage drama (unlike the C4 which is up to the task powering a number of USB3 consumers with stable 5V unlike the M5 here).
  6. The reason is that nobody at Armbian cares any more about such low level stuff. The string 'meson-g12b' (N2's board family) is missing from the case construct in so what you see is what is to be expected. All IRQ handling on cpu0 therefore being a nice bottleneck. Some people think irqbalanced would help but at least in the past it was common knowledge that for stuff like storage or networking static IRQ affinity is the way to go. BTW: You have massive filesystem corruption on the /var/log partition. As for your storage issues a simple web search for 'odroid n2 usb issues' might help.
  7. Well, that's why commit comments exist. The rockchip64 kernel has the following cpufreq OPP: 408000 600000 816000 1008000 1200000 1296000 So setting 600 MHz didn't do a lot other than causing confusion. A third of this thread's posts deal with cpufreq governor confusion wrongly assuming the SoC being on 600 MHz would be the root cause for the thermal anomalies R2S is plagued with. Anyway, this whole thread is bizarre. Why do users not simply verify the numbers some driver spits out? Why blindly trusting in numbers? Those users having the hardware right in front of them could've tested long ago whether the thermal readouts are BS or the hardware. Simply using their thumb and putting it on the heatsink.
  8. What? There's no difference between 408 MHz and 600 MHz since the DVFS OPP for both are pretty low. That's RK3328 powered Renegade idling at 408 MHz: root@renegade:/home/tk# armbianmonitor -m Stop monitoring using [ctrl]-[c] Time CPU load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq CPU C.St. 12:47:02: 1296MHz 0.19 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45.5°C 0/5 12:47:07: 408MHz 0.17 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43.6°C 0/5 12:47:12: 408MHz 0.16 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45.0°C 0/5 12:47:17: 408MHz 0.15 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44.1°C 0/5 12:47:23: 408MHz 0.13 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42.7°C 0/5 12:47:28: 408MHz 0.12 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44.5°C 0/5 12:47:33: 1296MHz 0.11 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 46.4°C 0/5^C That's the exact same hardware with exact same load when setting minimum cpufreq to 600 MHz (no idea why @Igor did this change back in November though, the 600 MHz are not the result of the cpufreq governor doing anything but of the project's owner commiting some changes for whatever reason): root@renegade:/home/tk# armbianmonitor -m Stop monitoring using [ctrl]-[c] Time CPU load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq CPU C.St. 13:42:02: 1296MHz 0.00 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 43.6°C 0/5 13:42:07: 600MHz 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44.5°C 0/5 13:42:12: 1296MHz 0.00 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44.5°C 0/5 13:42:17: 600MHz 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43.2°C 0/5 13:42:23: 600MHz 0.00 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43.6°C 0/5 13:42:28: 600MHz 0.00 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43.6°C 0/5 13:42:33: 600MHz 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45.0°C 0/5 13:42:38: 600MHz 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44.1°C 0/5^C And now compare with @devman's results above using R2S without the yellow plastic oven which are still close to 15°C above Renegade/Rock64. So it's obviously not an RK3328 problem users are talking here about! Wrt ondemand governor. This governor has some tunables that need to be set accordingly depending on kernel version. But since nobody in Armbian gives a sh*t about such low level stuff, it's as it is. This most probably would need some attention: The last time I asked for testers I got zero useful responses:
  9. Are you kidding? Again: There's no problem with the RK3328, this is just another boring Quad-Core A53 in 28nm (just like the H6). So the question remains what's wrong with NanoPi R2S and not the RK SoCs. And I really don't understand why so many blindly trust in numbers. There's a thermal sensor inside the SoC, there's a reference voltage, there's some calibration needed, there's driver code. The idea that the numbers this driver spits out are somewhat or even closely related to the actual temperature of the SoC in question is just a hope! Care to remember what you yourself already reported?
  10. So there's something seriously wrong with this hardware or kernel code. 60°C is something noticeable by 'thumb test'. Does it hurt if you press your thumb on the heatsink while Armbian reports above 55°C SoC temperature? Have you done a test with an image using Rockchip's BSP kernel (4.4)? Just to compare which temperatures are reported there? @@lex Why do you think a reported clockspeed of 600 MHz in idle would be an indication of wrong governor? Igor defined 600 MHz for whatever reasons half a year ago as minimum clockspeed but there shouldn't be much of a difference between the 408 MHz before and 600 MHz now.
  11. This is a Renegade featuring the same 'powerful and hot running' RK3328 with large passive heatsink without enclosure: ____ _ | _ \ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __| | ___ | |_) / _ \ '_ \ / _ \/ _` |/ _` |/ _` |/ _ \ | _ < __/ | | | __/ (_| | (_| | (_| | __/ |_| \_\___|_| |_|\___|\__, |\__,_|\__,_|\___| |___/ Welcome to Armbian buster with Linux 5.4.8-rockchip64 System load: 0.24 0.05 0.02 Up time: 41 days Memory usage: 12 % of 1986MB Zram usage: 7 % of 993Mb IP: CPU temp: 46°C Usage of /: 40% of 7.3G storage/: 16% of 7.3T Last login: Sun May 31 12:39:32 2020 from tk@renegade:~$ sudo -s [sudo] password for tk: root@renegade:/home/tk# armbianmonitor -m Stop monitoring using [ctrl]-[c] Time CPU load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq CPU C.St. 07:31:13: 1296MHz 0.20 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45.9°C 0/6 07:31:18: 408MHz 0.19 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42.7°C 0/6 07:31:23: 408MHz 0.17 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 39.5°C 0/6 07:31:29: 408MHz 0.16 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44.1°C 0/6 07:31:34: 408MHz 0.14 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42.3°C 0/6 07:31:39: 408MHz 0.13 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 41.8°C 0/6 07:31:44: 408MHz 0.12 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43.2°C 0/6 07:31:49: 1296MHz 0.33 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 47.3°C 0/6 07:31:55: 408MHz 0.30 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 41.8°C 0/6^C Rock64 is based on the very same RK3328 SoC, my board has just a laughable tiny heatsink on the SoC and all of the 8 sbc-bench results collected here were done without active cooling. Even with the most demanding cpuminer benchmark the SoC temperature was never reported as above 70°C and running cpuminer at 1.4GHz was possible without any throttling. This is NanoPi R2S using the very same RK3328 doing exactly nothing at all at around or above 70°C: If idle temperatures of NanoPi R2S without that little yellow plastic oven are above 50°C then there's clearly something wrong (maybe something trivial as a wrong supply voltage resulting in the thermal sensor reporting BS just as we saw on Orange Pi Zero). Utilizing FriendlyELEC's little yellow plastic oven of course will result in insane temperatures.
  12. Maybe you were drunk at the time and can't remember? Moving posts to threads that are inaccessible is the same as deletion (but maybe you're not able to get this). Apropos deletion. Asides that you have not the slightest idea what you babble here about (totally missing the context) You claim 'it is written in the internet or in one of TKs posts, ahh wait, he deleted everything here'. Care to elaborate what you mean? Here is the list of my 5432 posts so far: -- you almost singlehandedly stopped me from posting more in this forum since it makes absolutely no sense to post in a place where a dumbass with moderator privileges deletes posts (and either doesn't get what he does or simply lies). In case you want to censor again be aware that this post is already archived:
  13. Nope. Netdata is awesome. All I tried to explain is why 'armbianmonitor -r' was an attempt to generate insights about SBC behavior 3 years ago and why netdata is not sufficient for this purpose. Once you look at results the data collection approach completely changes system behavior --> useless for this use case. IMO you should take care of cpufreq scaling on this class of devices and if netdata should generate insights and not just fancy graphs you might want to explore EAS.
  14. Oh, "this forum"... This forum is pretty much irrelevant for what's important. I pushed contents into this forum for over 3 consecutive years trying to attract foreign readers/developers to these contents and get interested in Armbian to get broader adoption and relevance. My goal was to strengthen a small project (back in 2015) to become relevant since my needs are a stable OS distribution on ARM (I'm a server guy, I'm not interested in fancy shit but stable operation). Unfortunately to no avail. In theory both fancy shit and stable operation are possible at the same time but that's not how it works here. Armbian is still in playground mode. And it won't change anytime soon or at all. If the 'project lead' now even thinks about sabotaging Debian's packaging all is lost. There's no 'checks and balances' into place compared to serious software projects if one person simply can decide to do whatever crazy idea strikes his head. It's a problem of ignorance and you can't argue against it if the affected person simply doesn't give a shit. Look at Countless times developers tried to escalate those old and boring problems in a polite way. What happened? It got ignored. In the end this is a single person's project the way it's set up since while all contributing developers always tried to achieve a consensus and conform to (non-existent) rules Igor simply does what he thinks would be the best idea at the very moment. While complaining being overwhelmed he even invests time to make things worse (see the absolutely useless last efforts to change kernel versions for XU4 platform). I'm tired of cleaning up since I can spend my time on more important things. It's not about which OS base to choose but to understand that a project needs rules and defined goals at least if it want to leave playground area and become the basis for 'stable operation'. Unfortunately this is not possible with Armbian. After wasting several days of my life for discussions here with always the same result (Igor doing what he wants to do without communication or even feeling bound to a 'consensus' reached before) it's time to stop. @Tido move my post to the bin as usual!
  15. I've a background in graphic design so I'm pretty sure you don't want to hear the answer. Small hint: it reminds of the 'golden age' of DTP 30 years ago. This pretty much sums up what Armbian is.