Thanks, Chris > It takes 45 seconds to launch any application? This is definitely > not > normal no matter the file system or arrangement. The applications launches, the delay is when I am in an application and try to open a document on disk. For example, I am in LibreOffice and wants to open a document, I will click on File > Open, LibreOffice will freeze and at approximately after 45 second Nautilus will open so that I can select the file that I wants to open. > Can you provide exact reproducer steps? > From any application, LibreOffice, Gedit, teXstudio select open and here is where I experience the delays. > > Can you install bcc-tools and then run this command: > > sudo /usr/share/bcc/tools/fileslower Certainly. > > And then reproduce the problem? Once the app launches, you can > control-c to quit. Can you post the results? I think it's OK to just > paste it into the email reply to list. By default it will show only > IO > that takes more than 10ms. It's possible it won't show anything, > which > would be good but still mysterious. > > This is what I get with 'fileslower 1' which shows IO taking more > than > 1ms, while launching GNOME Maps. This is on NVMe. SSD might be a > touch > slower, possibly high single digit latencies. > https://pastebin.com/UpY5QH8x > > But if you're seeing higher than 100 let alone 1000 then the problem > is related to files being read slowly. In that case it might also be > useful to see if this is happening at the device level. > > sudo /usr/share/bcc/tools/biolatency 5 15 > > Now try to reproduce it again. These values are in usec and should be > less than 64K usec I'm guessing. Again you can past that whole thing > into the email reply, it's just asciiart, it'll probably be OK :D > > Example: > https://pastebin.com/u9fbpbvw > > Only the worst performers are likely to be revealing of a problem. It > doesn't matter to me if you include all 15 or just the ones that have > the highest values. In that example, it's the third block that ends > in > 32768 -> 65535. Do paste in the entire block though if you get this > far. Thanks for the details, I will use it and report back > > You only need to increase it if you're regularly hitting the limit, > i.e. it's full as reported by swapon. I'm not sure why the file > system > would make any difference in swap utilization. It tends to be related > to the workload. > > If so you can start out with: > > sudo nano /etc/systemd/zram-generator.conf > > Add to it: > [zram0] > max-zram-size=8192 I copied the files from /usr/share/doc to /etc/systemd and made the recommendation; however, when I restart the service I get the following errors Dec 07 22:10:23 jaguar zram-generator[34236]: Error: Failed to configure disk size into /sys/block/zram0/disksize Dec 07 22:10:23 jaguar zram-generator[34236]: Caused by: Dec 07 22:10:23 jaguar zram-generator[34236]: Invalid argument (os error 22) Dec 07 22:10:23 jaguar systemd[1]: swap-create@zram0.service: Main process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE ░░ Subject: Unit process exited ░░ Defined-By: systemd ░░ Support: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel ░░ ░░ An ExecStart= process belonging to unit swap-create@zram0.service has exited. ░░ ░░ The process' exit code is 'exited' and its exit status is 1. Dec 07 22:10:23 jaguar systemd[1]: swap-create@zram0.service: Failed with result 'exit-code'. ░░ Subject: Unit failed ░░ Defined-By: systemd ░░ Support: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel ░░ ░░ The unit swap-create@zram0.service has entered the 'failed' state with result 'exit-code'. Dec 07 22:10:23 jaguar systemd[1]: Failed to start Create swap on /dev/zram0. ░░ Subject: A start job for unit swap-create@zram0.service has failed > Save and then: > sudo systemctl restart swap-create@zram0.service > > The logic behind capping at 4G is just to be conservative. i.e. to > avoid the small amount of extra overhead for a larger zram device > that > may not get used; and also the case where something starts using so > much swap that it sucks up memory, even though it's compressed on the > zram device. There's a good chance the cap goes to 6G or 8G in F34, > i.e. the lesser of 50% RAM or 8G. There's also some idea of bumping > the percentage to something like 70%. (Quite a lot of use cases run > at > 1:1 zram to RAM, and upstream considers 2:1 reasonable due to the > compression ratio. I think in Fedora land that's too aggressive for > making it the default behavior, but on a case by case basis it's > reasonable not least of which is that it's easy for users to fiddle > with it, if they want.) Good to know.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
