| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: K3B DVD Writing Slows to a Crawl [solved] |
 |
|
I have a 4x DVD Writer. However lately (i.e.: used to work fine) after a few seconds, the burning speed slows down to 0.85x (presumably the slowest speed).
Is this a known K3B bug? Is this a known KDE 3.4 beta 2 issue? I can't think of anything else?
I believe I have the latest dvdrwtools package (I know it's not quite the right name--but you know what I mean).
Some suggestions?
Last edited by Danuvius on Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
My_World
Guru
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 339
Location: Kalahari Desert
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did you upgrade your kernel recently?
And did you enable write caching in the kernel?
:p
_________________
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Gentoo is too hard for me". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kraymer
Guru
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:11 am Post subject: cpu load? |
|
|
| does it have high cpu load? checking dma via hdparm is always a good idea.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nat
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It could be fragmentation of your filesystem doing this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trooper_ryan
n00b
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had k3b slowing to a crawl and occasionly locking up my box (100% cpu). Upgrading from 2.6.10 kernel to 2.6.11 solved this problem for me.
Kernel upgrade also stopped vmware causing kswapd0 to chew 99% cpu. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Did you upgrade your kernel recently?
And did you enable write caching in the kernel |
Maybe and no. I might have upgraded the kernel around the time this started, but I might not have. (was a while ago)
How do I check whether write caching is enabled?
| Quote: | | does it have high cpu load? checking dma via hdparm is always a good idea.. |
No. CPU load is negligable while burning.
I don't know what you are suggesting with regards to dma and hdparm. Could you give me some more specific instructions? Thanks!
| Quote: | | It could be fragmentation of your filesystem doing this. |
Really? I'm running reiserfs. 80GB hard-drive, right now with 5-10 GB free. How do you suggest I could check whether this is the problem. And if it is, what can I do?
| Quote: | I had k3b slowing to a crawl and occasionly locking up my box (100% cpu). Upgrading from 2.6.10 kernel to 2.6.11 solved this problem for me.
Kernel upgrade also stopped vmware causing kswapd0 to chew 99% cpu. |
No, that's not my problem. CPU use is negligable. Computer does not become unresponsive. My *burning speed* however *never* goes above 1x. In other words, burning a DVD is taking about an hour...
Someone help me, *pleeeease*! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kraymer
Guru
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:29 pm Post subject: hdparm |
|
|
Checking you DMA settings with hdparm is quite simple. Just do a | Code: | | hdparm -d /dev/cdrom |
to see the status. Type | Code: | | hdparm -d1 /dev/cdrom |
to activate dma.
Maybe the media is the problem in your case. Try different ones and/or look what the manufacturer suggests (many have whitepapers/compatibility lists on their websites).
Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:40 am Post subject: Re: hdparm |
|
|
| Kraymer wrote: | Checking you DMA settings with hdparm is quite simple. Just do a | Code: | | hdparm -d /dev/cdrom |
to see the status. Type | Code: | | hdparm -d1 /dev/cdrom |
to activate dma.
Maybe the media is the problem in your case. Try different ones and/or look what the manufacturer suggests (many have whitepapers/compatibility lists on their websites).
Sebastian |
I get the following:
| Code: |
bash-2.05b# hdparm /dev/cdroms/cdrom0
/dev/cdroms/cdrom0:
HDIO_GET_MULTCOUNT failed: Invalid argument
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 1 (on)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
HDIO_GETGEO failed: Invalid argument
bash-2.05b# hdparm -d1 /dev/cdrom
/dev/cdrom:
setting using_dma to 1 (on)
using_dma = 1 (on)
|
And k3b continues to refuse burning above something like 0.85x (less than 1x).
Any other ideas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My_World wrote: | Did you upgrade your kernel recently?
And did you enable write caching in the kernel?
:p |
How/where do I enable write caching in the kernel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interestingly when burning a DVD as root, the burning speed hovers back and forth 2.00x and 3.00x. (it should be 8.00x--so even here there is a definite problem)
Does this hint at what might be the cause? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kraymer
Guru
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject: hardware problem? |
|
|
I'm wondering if your problem is really related to your burning app or linux configuration.
You could try to burn using windows or knoppix. If they burn your media with good speed, one could try to further analyse your system configuration.
I don't see any hint why you encounter this problem ATM.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: hardware problem? |
|
|
| Kraymer wrote: | I'm wondering if your problem is really related to your burning app or linux configuration.
You could try to burn using windows or knoppix. If they burn your media with good speed, one could try to further analyse your system configuration.
I don't see any hint why you encounter this problem ATM.. |
I see.  I'll give knoppix burning a try, and report back. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This couldn't be related to NPTL? Could it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drescherjm
Advocate
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 2790
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about running hdparm for your hard disk to see if DMA is enabled for that too.
[EDIT]
This will probably only work for IDE drives as other drive types do not report DMA.
While I think of it you are not trying to burn from a network drive are you?
[/EDIT]
_________________
John
My gentoo overlay
Instructons for overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kraymer
Guru
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:35 pm Post subject: nope |
|
|
| drescherjm wrote: | | How about running hdparm for your hard disk to see if DMA is enabled for that too. |
Since he stated that cpu is quite normal/negligible I think this isn't the bottleneck.. But definitely there's something really odd going on here.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: nope |
|
|
| Kraymer wrote: | | drescherjm wrote: | | How about running hdparm for your hard disk to see if DMA is enabled for that too. |
Since he stated that cpu is quite normal/negligible I think this isn't the bottleneck.. But definitely there's something really odd going on here.. |
DMA is enabled on my hard drive too.
New twist:
1. I upgraded my kernel to gentoo-dev-sources (2.6.11-gentoo-r4).
2. The first time booting into it, I start burning a DVD...
2a. It starts burning at 5x speed (and does it for several hundred megs)
3. I start Mozilla Firefox.
3a. CPU usage shoots up to 100%-ish for a few seconds.
3b. Burning speed slows to 0.80x-ish.
4. I come to write this message.
4a. Looking back, I notice the DVD is being written at about 7x speed.
4b. 10 seconds later it slows down to about 2x speed.
4c. Bit later still (i.e.: now) it is back down to 0.80x speed.
Any thoughts???
Obviously the CPU usage being so high impacted the burning speed... but why should it? Shouldn't the burning software be running with higher priority?
This was not how things used to be. I used to be able use the computer without a problem while burning.
Admittedly, if I can burn fast with no other programs being started, that is a partial solution. Alas, it's probably another 30 minutes before the current DVD is done and I'll have a chance to try.
-----
Also, can someone recommend me a livecd that I can load into memory (I have 512 MB RAM), eject the cd, then burn a DVD (just to see if I get different results)? Knoppix I suspect would require 1GB memory, which I don't have.
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh... one more detail. The "buffer status" bar does not work on my K3B installation. It just says "no info".
I didn't even mention this though because I don't think it ever worked since an old SuSE 9.0 installation from quite a while ago...
Nonetheless... could buffer (or lack thereof) be the issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kraymer
Guru
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject: mission accomplished? |
|
|
If your dvd is written at 7x speed, do you realize how busy your harddrive would be? it's about 7x1,3MB/s or so.. Generally, using another application while burning shouldn't be a problem, also, cpu intensive tasks are okay. Loading other files (like libraries, images..) for firefox stresses your harddrive a lot.
growisofs doesn't show any buffer information like cdrecord does. I guess that's why k3b shows nothing. That's quite normal. Anyway, with growisofs and a recent burner (like all dvd writers) you don't have to fear buffer underruns that much.
Upgrading your kernel seems to have solved your problem. Maybe it was some weirdness with some part of your hardware that was fixed now. 
Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackB1rd
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 131
Location: /Europe/Netherlands/Haarlem
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: Re: mission accomplished? |
|
|
| Kraymer wrote: | | Anyway, with growisofs and a recent burner (like all dvd writers) you don't have to fear buffer underruns that much. |
I disagree. I also don't have a (software) buffer, and without running k3b at niceness +19 it will continuously pause when doing other things at my machine. So these buffer underruns definitely occurs, they are just handled well by the (almost always available) burnfree feature. But they shouldn't happen under normal circumstances! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kraymer
Guru
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: mission accomplished? |
|
|
| BlackB1rd wrote: | | Kraymer wrote: | | Anyway, with growisofs and a recent burner (like all dvd writers) you don't have to fear buffer underruns that much. |
I disagree. I also don't have a (software) buffer, and without running k3b at niceness +19 it will continuously pause when doing other things at my machine. So these buffer underruns definitely occurs, they are just handled well by the (almost always available) burnfree feature. But they shouldn't happen under normal circumstances! |
Agreed. Actually, that's what I meant in the first place. I mistook buffer underruns with preventing errors using the burnfree feature.
But I think you mistook niceness +19 with -19
We agree that working on the pc while burning shouldn't be a problem.
Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nat
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danuvius wrote: |
| Quote: | | It could be fragmentation of your filesystem doing this. |
Really? I'm running reiserfs. 80GB hard-drive, right now with 5-10 GB free. How do you suggest I could check whether this is the problem. And if it is, what can I do?
|
88% - 93% full? Sounds like it really could be fragmentation. Fragmentation is rarely problem, but when it happens it is normally 1) big files, 2) full partitions. Any fs will fragment if you fill up the partition, but my own experience is that especially reiserfs is bad at full partiotions. (btw have you noticed that removing the entire portage tree on a reiserfs partition can speed things up dramatically?)
Is it a bittorent iso-file? Bittorent creates files with "holes". They are known to fragment badly (some other p2p apps is doing the same thing)
You could try moving everything you try to burn to another partition, including a the temp dir for creating the iso images.
You could try backup/mkreiserfs/restore on your partition (reformat). Try burning direcly after.
You could try XFS instead of reiserfs. XFS is better handling big files and is supposed to be able to defragment single files. (never tried myself though). Don't try to "convert" the fs. Backup, mkfs.xfs, restore, modify fstab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kraymer
Guru
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 349
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="nat"] | Danuvius wrote: | | You could try XFS instead of reiserfs. XFS is better handling big files and is supposed to be able to defragment single files. (never tried myself though). Don't try to "convert" the fs. Backup, mkfs.xfs, restore, modify fstab. |
Afaik xfs is only to a part better regarding defragmentation. It leaves some space after every file so that, if you edit the file (and increase its size) it won't be defragmented. I assume no fs is immune to fragmentation for every purpose if you fill your partition 90% and above 
Sad that there's no tool (?) to defragment a partition though.
edit: besides of that, xfs is good in my option, my fileserver uses it and it serves quite well But there are more big that small files. My guess is that, for many many small files, xfs is not the best choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nat
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraymer wrote: | | nat wrote: | | You could try XFS instead of reiserfs. XFS is better handling big files and is supposed to be able to defragment single files. (never tried myself though). Don't try to "convert" the fs. Backup, mkfs.xfs, restore, modify fstab. |
Afaik xfs is only to a part better regarding defragmentation. It leaves some space after every file so that, if you edit the file (and increase its size) it won't be defragmented. I assume no fs is immune to fragmentation for every purpose if you fill your partition 90% and above
Sad that there's no tool (?) to defragment a partition though.
edit: besides of that, xfs is good in my option, my fileserver uses it and it serves quite well But there are more big that small files. My guess is that, for many many small files, xfs is not the best choice. |
Well, its kind of natural that every filesystem gets fragmented when filled up. However, when it comes to bittorent files and other files with "holes" when created, I think you can use xfs_fsr (in the xfsdump ebuild) to get the file reorganized (defragmented).
Comparing xfs and reiserfs, reiser is better on small files (4k or less) and deleting files, xfs is better on big files - and has a defrag utility for some situations. (filling up a partition is never good). So for storing iso-images and media files (divx,mp3 etc) xfs is a better choice than reiserfs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:38 pm Post subject: Figured it out... URGH!! |
|
|
Mystery solved...
The problem was with the physical setup of my equipment.
Due to cord length issues, my computer was placed on top of a box. The box (while did not seem so) I now suspect was not a "level surface". The computer operated like this for months... and DVD burning kept getting worse and worse. I would not be surprised if I had reduced the lifetime of the drive with this.
Now that the computer is back on the ground, it is working *better*. Not well! But better.
I am getting coasters with some regulalarity... but I am also *occasionally* getting better burning speeds. Most of the time it still crawls at 0.75x instead of 4x - 7x. But every couple of burns goes up between 1x - 6x speed.
Ultimately I pretty much have to purchase a new DVD burner.
A warning to all, I suppose...
Thanks for all the help and advice I got from all you guys though! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danuvius
Guru
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nat wrote: | | Comparing xfs and reiserfs, reiser is better on small files (4k or less) and deleting files, xfs is better on big files - and has a defrag utility for some situations. (filling up a partition is never good). So for storing iso-images and media files (divx,mp3 etc) xfs is a better choice than reiserfs. |
I'll have to ignore sensible advice--I am preparing a move to reiser4.
The preliminary test I did on an old 4.3 GB hard drive impressed the hell out of me. Emerge sync and compilation went faster than on my year and a half old 80 GB hard drive.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Desktop Environments
