pbies

Shenzhen Xunlong Software CO.,Limited is not taking any responsibility for the boards they are selling. I am second week trying to get refund for sent for RMA board, but Steven Zhao - their support is still talking the same that they can fix the board in their own way, which is useless for me. I've made contact with this words: No mister, I'll explain: 1. The board should be in the same condition as I've sent it, so nearly new - nothing was done with the board crossing any normal usage boundaries. So the board is as new. There is no reason to treat it like a lower value hardware. 2. I don't expect unlimited service, I expect standard EU RMA which you should hold for at least one year from date of purchase (over 9 months from today to the future). Basing on RMA I've sent you the board to fix the problems. Only because of that. I was suspecting hardware problem but you said the hardware is ok. 3. I am not interested in your software, as of these reasons: a) it is a security risk - I don't know what you will flash to the board - I need to do it myself b) I would not be able to flash anything if the board system hangs up and can't be started, because I will lost you work concerning Wi-Fi and Ethernet c) I would need to send you the board each time the board stops working from software reasons to make Wi-Fi and Ethernet work again 4. I've already told you what instructions I need - on email and in messages here. You still didn't read them and you need to go through them as many times as is possible till you understand what I need. 5. Software on the board was downloaded from your website - images given of operating system Debian and Ubuntu - they remain nearly unchanged on the board and with them the Wi-Fi can't work more than few hours and Ethernet can't work at 1Gbps. So if this is your software - I've already told you: sent instructions how to make these two (Wi-Fi, Ethernet) elements work on provided by you images of operating systems (too old for today Ubuntu 16.04 from year 2016). 6. I don't accept "ready on the board" solution because of point 3 - this is a security risk and I would not be able to flash any other firmware without losing your job done on the board to make things work. And this is why I am demanding refund, as you said - you can't fix it in the way normal engineer would expect to. Board with prepared by you firmware is useless for me - look point 3 a+b+c above. Still they refuse to make a refund.

It is about 3 months as I am contacting support for this board. They can't make the board Wi-Fi work for longer time (more than few hours) and Ethernet at 1Gbps. The support guy Steven is so stupid, that he is not reading any of my messages and trying to force their solution to load software to the board and return it back to me. Which is a security issue and I will have no possibility to load any other software in the future even if the board will stop responding. This support and all around this board is so useless that is getting me pissed off and nervous. If you want a nicely working board please buy anything else than RK3399 Orange Pi.

This would be not a bad idea, if the SD card wouldn't be few times slower than the eMMC. As I have good SD card, exactly microSD, it does not give reasonable speeds on this board. 20MB/s for linear read is not enough. eMMC is giving me 200MB/s in average. I suspect that OS is too old to provide faster speed for this SD card. If it is possible to run it faster. I am not enough advanced about these boards to mess with u-boot.

@tkaiser cpuinfo for Orange Pi RK3399: processor : 0 model name : ARMv8 Processor rev 4 (v8l) BogoMIPS : 48.00 Features : half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpv4 idiva idivt lpae evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 CPU implementer : 0x41 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0xd03 CPU revision : 4 processor : 1 model name : ARMv8 Processor rev 4 (v8l) BogoMIPS : 48.00 Features : half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpv4 idiva idivt lpae evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 CPU implementer : 0x41 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0xd03 CPU revision : 4 processor : 2 model name : ARMv8 Processor rev 4 (v8l) BogoMIPS : 48.00 Features : half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpv4 idiva idivt lpae evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 CPU implementer : 0x41 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0xd03 CPU revision : 4 processor : 3 model name : ARMv8 Processor rev 4 (v8l) BogoMIPS : 48.00 Features : half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpv4 idiva idivt lpae evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 CPU implementer : 0x41 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0xd03 CPU revision : 4 processor : 4 model name : ARMv8 Processor rev 2 (v8l) BogoMIPS : 48.00 Features : half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpv4 idiva idivt lpae evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 CPU implementer : 0x41 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0xd08 CPU revision : 2 processor : 5 model name : ARMv8 Processor rev 2 (v8l) BogoMIPS : 48.00 Features : half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3 tls vfpv4 idiva idivt lpae evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 CPU implementer : 0x41 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0xd08 CPU revision : 2 Serial : 0000000000000000

Hello All, I recently bought Orange Pi RK3399 and had some problems with it. At this moment I've solved most of them, but still no luck with such an old OS like Ubuntu Server 16.04 or Debian 9 which were provided by the manufacturer (images to flash). What I am thinking now is to move this board to Armbian. Will it work? How should I in this case organize the partitions on eMMC and where to load kernel and rootfs? I don't see this board in supported ones.

I've changed my router yesterday to 1000Mb/s and Orange Pi RK3399 is not fully functioning with this speed. Needed to lower the speed to 100Mb/s to be able to use SSH or Samba. At 1000Mb/s there were many connection issues. Provided old Ubuntu Server and Debian images for this board are not compatible with newer hardware and with the board itself. Still in need for new OS for this board.

Wi-Fi on Ubuntu Server provided by manufacturer was not working properly. It happened few times that the Pi hang-up when Wi-Fi was on. There were errors in syslog. So I've switched to provided Debian and for some time everything was fine with Wi-Fi till the same errors that happened on Ubuntu. Kernel version does not matter here. So the Wi-Fi module is useless at this moment. Need to wait for next version of OS for this board.

@TonyMac32 this is Ubuntu, not Armbian, so the command does not exist. Also, after syslog is filled in with error messages, there is no way to use the Pi or execute any command. Syslog has many lines like these: Aug 21 11:33:03 opi kernel: [36492.358017] bcmsdh_sdmmc: Failed to Write byte F1:@0x1001f=00, Err: -5 Aug 21 11:33:03 opi kernel: [36492.361114] bcmsdh_sdmmc: Failed to Write byte F1:@0x1001f=00, Err: -5 Aug 21 11:33:03 opi kernel: [36492.364195] bcmsdh_sdmmc: Failed to Write byte F1:@0x1001f=00, Err: -5 Aug 21 11:33:03 opi kernel: [36492.366305] bcmsdh_sdmmc: Failed to Read byte F1:@0x1001f=ff, Err: -5 Aug 21 11:33:03 opi kernel: [36492.369400] bcmsdh_sdmmc: Failed to Read byte F1:@0x1001f=ff, Err: -5 Aug 21 11:33:03 opi kernel: [36492.372494] bcmsdh_sdmmc: Failed to Read byte F1:@0x1001f=ff, Err: -5 Kernel is running with these parameters: label kernel-4.4 kernel /Image fdt /rk3399-orangepi.dtb append earlyprintk console=ttyFIQ0,1500000n8 rw root=PARTUUID=b921b045-1d rootfstype=ext4 init=/sbin/init rootwait

With Wi-Fi files in /system/etc/firmware/ fw_bcm4356a2_ag.bin nvram_ap6356.txt nvram_ap6356s.txt Pi is giving many errors in syslog - concerning read/write operations to/from bcmsdh_sdmmc. Then can't use the board in any way (SSH, samba). Wi-Fi usage has no sense with this board with the provided drivers.

If you want to move from default 4.4.103 kernel version to 4.4.143 it is possible just by replacing the "Image" file in "boot" folder (boot partition which is FAT when you mount it). No need to change the .conf or .dtb files. Tested. The instruction is provided here: http://opensource.rock-chips.com/wiki_Rockchip_Kernel Which takes only 4 commands: git clone https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel.git cd kernel make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- rockchip_linux_defconfig make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- -j4 And you have "Image" file. Surely some packages would be needed - all is on the Internet if you search for a specific error messages.

Benchmarks 2018-08-18: $ stress-ng --cpu 1 --cpu-method matrixprod --metrics-brief -t 60 stress-ng: info: [1932] dispatching hogs: 1 cpu stress-ng: info: [1932] cache allocate: using built-in defaults as unable to determine cache details stress-ng: info: [1932] cache allocate: default cache size: 2048K stress-ng: info: [1932] successful run completed in 60.23s (1 min, 0.23 secs) stress-ng: info: [1932] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s stress-ng: info: [1932] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) stress-ng: info: [1932] cpu 258 60.22 60.22 0.00 4.28 4.28 $ stress-ng --cpu 6 --cpu-method matrixprod --metrics-brief -t 60 stress-ng: info: [1935] dispatching hogs: 6 cpu stress-ng: info: [1935] cache allocate: using built-in defaults as unable to determine cache details stress-ng: info: [1935] cache allocate: default cache size: 2048K stress-ng: info: [1935] successful run completed in 60.14s (1 min, 0.14 secs) stress-ng: info: [1935] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s stress-ng: info: [1935] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) stress-ng: info: [1935] cpu 882 60.10 359.17 0.02 14.68 2.46 $ sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=20000 --num-threads=1 --max-time=60 run sysbench 0.4.12: multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark Running the test with following options: Number of threads: 1 Doing CPU performance benchmark Threads started! Done. Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 20000 Test execution summary: total time: 14.2567s total number of events: 10000 total time taken by event execution: 14.2539 per-request statistics: min: 1.42ms avg: 1.43ms max: 6.39ms approx. 95 percentile: 1.42ms Threads fairness: events (avg/stddev): 10000.0000/0.00 execution time (avg/stddev): 14.2539/0.00 $ sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=20000 --num-threads=6 --max-time=60 run sysbench 0.4.12: multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark Running the test with following options: Number of threads: 6 Doing CPU performance benchmark Threads started! Done. Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 20000 Test execution summary: total time: 3.5062s total number of events: 10000 total time taken by event execution: 20.9935 per-request statistics: min: 1.42ms avg: 2.10ms max: 19.40ms approx. 95 percentile: 2.62ms Threads fairness: events (avg/stddev): 1666.6667/498.81 execution time (avg/stddev): 3.4989/0.00

Orange Pi RK3399 eMMC read speed is: 14,6GiB 0:01:13 [ 202MiB/s] [===...===>] 100% It varies from 170 MB/s to over 216 MB/s. Command used: pv /dev/mmcblk1 > /dev/null Write speed in filesystem is about 48 MB/s.

In 7-zip benchmark Orange Pi RK3399 gives about 5330 MIPS total, when Raspberry Pi 3 B+ gives 2833 MIPS. Surely these are not very accurate benchmarks as there throttling occurs.

Are these files the same as in manufacturers files (all OSes), or they are especially written for Armbian?

Steps: - Download: "OrangePi-RK3399_Linux4.4_V1.0_2018_0110.tar.gz" "OrangePi-rk3399_Ubuntu16.04-Server_20171227.img" - Start Linux on PC - Unpack .tar.gz via "tar xvf OrangePi-RK3399_Linux4.4_V1.0_2018_0110.tar.gz" - it will create a subfolder "rk-linux", no need to create any folders - In folder "rk-linux" create folder "out" - Put in "out" folder the Ubuntu .img file and rename it to "system.img" - Short connect the two pins and connect board via USB-C to USB 2.0 in your PC - you may need to repeat this step if the following step gives error - Run "./build/flash_tool.sh -c rk3399 -p system -i out/system.img" from "rk-linux" folder Done!

AT LAST! I've started the RK3399 with Ubuntu Server 16.04.3 LTS, kernel 4.4.103. Exactly flashed under Linux the provided Ubuntu image from Mega hosting. You need the Linux4.4...tar.gz file to flash the image. The mk-image.sh script is making recursive rootfs.img inside system.img - so it won't work! You can check that by 7-zip on Windows. Image compiled like it is said in manual won't work as rootfs is in this image recursively. Via Windows AndroidTool you can flash only Android image, other images, whatever they are, won't be taken. /proc/cpuinfo sees only 6 CPUs (0-5). Serial number for CPU is only zeros. You can flash the image only on Linux, using USB 2.0 port - not 3.0! Linux flash_tool.sh is in .tar.gz - you need to uncompress the whole file (binaries which are needed are elsewhere in that archive). Reboot from logged in root to login prompt takes 16 seconds. Login "root", password "orangepi" - I suspect root can't login first time. Other user - login "orangepi", password "orangepi", then "su", there is no "sudo". There are NO: ifconfig, ping, trace*, mc, pv, links, arp, rarp. There are: ifup, ifdown, ifquery, wpa_passphrase, wpa_supplicant. There is no network configuration - any! Only some files that are nearly empty - not configured. "ifquery" gives only "lo" and "eth0". Now I need to configure Ethernet and/or Wi-Fi on that board - all help appreciated! If you need to know anything - just ask!

Well, after two weeks fight with Orange Pi RK3399 I am trying to return it to seller on AliExpress. I flashed Linux images to the board few times, but the board does not boot. Many users on manufacturer's forum are complaining that they can't do anything with the board. The only system which is working in Android, which is useless in many cases. Maybe this board is powerful, but the software and support given are ridiculous. Board has few months and there should be stable Linux provided, not only Android (even without Google Play shop). If you want to lose money - buying this board is the right direction.

I have it in my hand. I can give you feedback about this board. Due to eMMC it is nearly not accessible from outside. Android already installed in eMMC is useless. Keyboard and mouse gives nothing with this board. Need to make some acrobatics to work this board out. First install a normal Linux system. By USB-C cable connected to my PC I can't do anything with this board, because it receives not enough power. Dedicated PSU gives possibility to boot to Android, but no other sensible port to program the eMMC.

@chwe I always try to simplify things when there is such possibility, so I'll be short on what you written: it is a specific usage and the CPU core is the most important part. That's why I need reliable benchmark of CPU, NOT RAM, NOT IO, NOT disk. And yes, cache is part of CPU - good for my application. But as you can see the rumours are different for each app. I didn't selected the last and only bench for this moment. I'm gathering knowledge and not happy enough with the current proposals and results. Also in multi-threaded and multi-core benchmarks, I think, you will not find the same results even on the same machine in the same circumstances. What I am trying to do is to compare x86/x64 with ARM in some kind of general for those two architectures bench. And also I don't belive that I am only one on the planet that is searching for such app. It should exist. Even if it doesn't exist - one should be able to write it. Linpack seems to be the right choice, but I need to drill the topic more.

I imagine such benchmark as: - operating only on registers = add, subtract, multiply, divide and other math instructions (ALU) - using many of ARM instructions, but limited to ARM, and also be reliable on x86/x64 CPUs - doing number of operations in specific (selectable) time - only operating on RAM if there is need to check the clock for the above

@NicoD I know the computer hardware and software for 30 years now, so no need to explain me anything. This is also the time I was a developer. Lost tracking the apps just 2 years ago as they got multiplied by thousands. That's why I am asking for CPU benchmark. I know that RAM will be used to start/stop the benchmark, as OS is needed and so on, but still all the operations can be done only on CPU, with small help of clock which can be just checked for time passed along with the test. So there is no need to use RAM for CPU benchmark that much. And that's the bench I was looking for. I understand that you didn't found such a bench because I don't belive that such doesn't exist. And yes, I know, that OS will interrupt the benchmark just by interrupts and IO and will be not exact, but it is fine for me - still no need to use RAM for CPU benchmark.

@tkaiser Really, I am not interested in your negative way of thinking. Please leave me alone out of your ideas. @NicoD You didn't understood what I said: I need benchmark for CPU, not RAM. And to benchmark CPU you don't need tons of RAM as for 7z. You understand now direction in which I want to go? I don't need to test tons of RAM, I agree that nothing without it would exist, but still operations on registers is enough to test CPU, and NOT on RAM.

@NicoD still these rely on RAM speed, compression. I would go for Phoronix Test Suite and stress-ng. Thanks.

@NicoD SBCs aren't CPU alone, but I need to test only CPU. 7z is dependant on RAM mainly. This way I can use MemTest and get the same level-reliable results. So what kind of software do you propose then? Do you have any software that tests only CPU and isn't memory-dependant? And please don't tell me that it doesn't exist - any such software can operate only on registers inside CPU.

@tkaiser @NicoD I understand your posts, but don't agree with them. As 7z is not enough reliable in testing only CPU, I didn't found other benchmark to test CPU. If you have any other benchmark that would be reliable - just tell me the name. 7z is killed by kernel, because it is using too much resources for its tests. And this is normal for kernel. At later test it is using over 2GB of RAM, so it is using swapfile (much worse results) then and gets killed. That's enough for me to assume that it is not a reliable benchmark. And this is the reason why I am not putting here results of 7z benchmarks. Still I don't see any other better only-CPU test for SBCs. And I assume that each compiler do its best for each architecture, so still sysbench stays with me much more than 7z.