tkaiser

  • Content Count

    5445
  • Joined

About tkaiser

  • Rank
    Embedded member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

23967 profile views
  1. A random guy from the US gained moderator status for whatever reasons. Next steps: misusing his moderator rights to censor. Time to leave.
  2. OMFG. You're so busy 'reviewing' stuff that you have no time becoming familiar with the basics you babble about.
  3. 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 btr
  4. 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? https://github.com/openmediavault/openmediavault/issues/101#issuecomment-473920806 2) btrfs lives inside the kernel and as such you need a recent kernel version to escape old and well known bugs. Now look
  5. 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. https://github.com/armbian/build/commit/1a04b50674626cf0165c84ef463c2b9e3df07061#commitcomment-40258499
  7. 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 https://github.com/armbian/build/blob/master/packages/bsp/common/usr/lib/armbian/armbian-hardware-optimization 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 filesyst
  8. 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
  9. 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: 408M
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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: 192.168.83
  13. Maybe you were drunk at the time and can't remember? https://github.com/armbian/build/commit/7f1c5b19cd58f100218c0175f9e81df1b5276003#commitcomment-33848416 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: https://forum.ar
  14. 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.
  15. 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 t