Hello :-) I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous releases on my desktop. I have noted this slow down at 9.1-RC. I have AMD64 4GB RAM i3 CPU and when I simply run Chromium, VBox with Windows XP 64bit (1GB allocated) and VBox with Ubuntu 64bit (1GB allocated) my machine gets unresponsive - it does not even respond to ACPI shutdown, I need to kill it to get working again :-( I did not happen before. I have also noted that VBox 4.2.6 is working far more slower and makes bigger impact on the whole host performance - sometimes I need to wait some seconds to get the machine response back, this happens especially at loading stage :-( Is there any way to get back the efficiency of my FreeBSD? Maybe I need to bump some configuration to make it more efficient? :-) Any hints appreciated :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, CeDeROM <cederom at tlen.pl> wrote:> Hello :-) > > I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous > releases on my desktop. I have noted this slow down at 9.1-RC. I have > AMD64 4GB RAM i3 CPU and when I simply run Chromium, VBox with Windows > XP 64bit (1GB allocated) and VBox with Ubuntu 64bit (1GB allocated) my > machine gets unresponsive - it does not even respond to ACPI shutdown, > I need to kill it to get working again :-( I did not happen before. > > I have also noted that VBox 4.2.6 is working far more slower and makes > bigger impact on the whole host performance - sometimes I need to wait > some seconds to get the machine response back, this happens especially > at loading stage :-( > > Is there any way to get back the efficiency of my FreeBSD? Maybe I > need to bump some configuration to make it more efficient? :-) > > Any hints appreciated :-) > TomekYou can try to switch to emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy which is VirtualBox 4.1.x just to rule out that this is a vbox regression. Just be sure to power down the VMs first. It would be interesting to watch if the machine starts to swap when that is all running. -- Bernhard Froehlich http://www.bluelife.at/
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Bernhard Fr?hlich <decke at freebsd.org> wrote:> You can try to switch to emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy which is > VirtualBox 4.1.x > just to rule out that this is a vbox regression. Just be sure to power > down the VMs > first. > It would be interesting to watch if the machine starts to swap when that is all > running.Hello Bernhard, thank you for your hints, I can try with VBox 4.1, but first I will try to get rid of the Ext2 from my system. On another machine I have switched to UFS2 and the speed increased noticably. I will let you know when I transfer all of those GB of data :-) Yes it looks like the cause of the hangup is the swap rush/deadlock but I could not verify it as the machine was unresponsive. Still both machines use 1GB of RAM per VM so still 2GB should be free. With other applications running and the OS taking 1GB itself (what I have seen on some other posts) this may happen :-( Best regards :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, CeDeROM <cederom at tlen.pl> wrote:> I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous > releases on my desktop.Right now as I backup my data (~250GB) I also notice deadlocks on data transfers. I also noticed that on another machine (6 cores, 16GB RAM) with 9.1-RELEASE AMD64. Maybe the responsiveness issue is related to disk access/transfers..? -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, CeDeROM <cederom at tlen.pl> wrote:> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Bernhard Fr?hlich <decke at freebsd.org> wrote: >> You can try to switch to emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy which is >> VirtualBox 4.1.x >> just to rule out that this is a vbox regression. Just be sure to power >> down the VMs >> first. >> It would be interesting to watch if the machine starts to swap when that is all >> running. > > Hello Bernhard, thank you for your hints, I can try with VBox 4.1, but > first I will try to get rid of the Ext2 from my system. On another > machine I have switched to UFS2 and the speed increased noticably. I > will let you know when I transfer all of those GB of data :-) > > Yes it looks like the cause of the hangup is the swap rush/deadlock > but I could not verify it as the machine was unresponsive. Still both > machines use 1GB of RAM per VM so still 2GB should be free. With other > applications running and the OS taking 1GB itself (what I have seen on > some other posts) this may happen :-(VBox itself also needs some RAM and the emulated Graphics Card which can easily be 128M per VM. -- Bernhard Froehlich http://www.bluelife.at/
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Bernhard Fr?hlich <decke at freebsd.org> wrote:> VBox itself also needs some RAM and the emulated Graphics Card which > can easily be 128M per VM.This is what I get with CP and one VBox running - memory use is not that high but the responsiveness is getting low now: last pid: 20852; load averages: 0.66, 0.64, 0.49 up 0+03:28:10 17:06:38 100 processes: 1 running, 97 sleeping, 2 zombie CPU: 3.2% user, 0.0% nice, 1.7% system, 0.3% interrupt, 94.8% idle Mem: 1072M Active, 312M Inact, 2187M Wired, 91M Cache, 395M Buf, 80M Free Swap: 6071M Total, 284M Used, 5786M Free, 4% Inuse PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 20846 cd 20 20 0 1489M 1191M uwait 3 1:20 15.48% VirtualBox 2199 cd 1 29 0 195M 51276K select 1 20:26 10.69% Xorg 2279 cd 2 22 0 169M 14556K piperd 1 0:47 0.20% Terminal 20724 root 1 20 0 18112K 3060K vnread 0 2:42 0.10% cp 2500 cd 7 20 0 1106M 199M sbwait 1 3:18 0.00% chrome 2485 cd 21 20 0 503M 99948K uwait 3 1:51 0.00% chrome -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:08 PM, CeDeROM <cederom at tlen.pl> wrote:> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Bernhard Fr?hlich <decke at freebsd.org> wrote: >> VBox itself also needs some RAM and the emulated Graphics Card which >> can easily be 128M per VM. > > This is what I get with CP and one VBox running - memory use is not > that high but the responsiveness is getting low now:I am now almost sure that these delays are caused by IO and/or MEMORY operations because I can see dramatical decrease in responsivness when: 1. I have constant IO operations provided by copying ~250GB of data from/to external drive. Copying takes really lots of time and slows down the whole system noticably. 2. When any bigger application starts whole system slows down - i.e. my xorg/xfce4 keeps me waiting some seconds for action, still i can hear fluent mp3 stream behind. After application is loaded it works pretty fine until it starts operating on a data or unloads. When VBox starts the vmachine I get terrible glitches, then when everything is loaded system and vmachine works fine until it needs to load something that again slows down the whole system, then when I want to shut down the machine it gets unresponsive. 3. When the swap starts working things also gets really bad. I can work on VESA xorg driver, I can have no multimedia drivers, but the system performance is really important factor for me and working like this is really unpleasant on a pretty modern machine :-( I dont want to even think to switch to Ubuntu :-P Any hints on how to fix this situation are highly welcome :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:35 PM, CeDeROM <cederom at tlen.pl> wrote:> I can work on VESA xorg driver, I can have no multimedia drivers, but > the system performance is really important factor for me and working > like this is really unpleasant on a pretty modern machine :-(I made a short movie to show how bad this looks :-) After some time of moving data from ext2 sata partition to ufs2 usb partition I have started Xorg, the speed is a disaster, then I have shutdown the Xorg, stopped file transfer and starter Xorg again, things were okay, then started transfer again and things get worse and worse again... http://youtu.be/5pLODViX3JY Now when all of the data are back on the sata drive with UFS2 things seems a lot better. Do you think this may be the EXT2 issue? Still when swap starts working there is a slowdown to the whole system. What are recommended flags to build the kernel for efficiency? Does debug symbols in kernel can slow things down? Any hints welcome! :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
CeDeROM wrote:> I have found 9.1 to be far more less responsive than 9.0 and previous > releases on my desktop. I have noted this slow down at 9.1-RC. I have > AMD64 4GB RAM i3 CPU and when I simply run Chromium, VBox with Windows > XP 64bit (1GB allocated) and VBox with Ubuntu 64bit (1GB allocated) my > machine gets unresponsive - it does not even respond to ACPI shutdown, > I need to kill it to get working again :-( I did not happen before. > > I have also noted that VBox 4.2.6 is working far more slower and makes > bigger impact on the whole host performance - sometimes I need to wait > some seconds to get the machine response back, this happens especially > at loading stage :-(I generally do not observe such a behaviour on my machine (AMD FX-6100, 8GB RAM) running 9.1-PRERELEASE amd64 from mid-november '12. The system is ZFS-only and equipped with a single WDC disk. I'm also running VBox 4.2.6 with Fedora Linux (64 bit) as guest; the virtual machine has 1.5GB RAM allocated. There was and is no delay in using the virtual machine. Even under heavy load (load level > 20) the system is interactive, that is, I can watch videos, surf the net, etc. without almost no hiccup. Only if memory is really scarce and I'm copying a large file (~7.5GB) the system becomes kind of slow, e.g. it takes some time to switch between different applications. Up to now, I didn't need to kill my machine to get it working again. HTH, Philipp
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, CeDeROM <cederom at tlen.pl> wrote:> I am not sure if this is the case of external drive, it only helped us > to figure out that problem is with writing to ICH SATA - WDC > configuration.Sorry, this is not exactly true - this happens on both Intel i5 equipment and AMD PhenomII x6 equipment. Both use SATA, both use WDC drives. -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info