A+ timing, I’m upgrading from a 1050ti to a 7800XT in a couple weeks! I don’t care too much for “ai” stuff in general but hey, an extra thing to fuck around with for no extra cost is fun.
I’m a bit confused, the information isn’t very clear, but I think this might not apply to typical consumer hardware, but rather specialized CPUs and GPUs?
SATA III is gigabit, so the max speed is actually 600MB/s.
What filesystem? For example, on my ZFS pool I had to let ZFS use a good chunk of my RAM for it to be able to cache things enough that rsync would max out the throughput.
Rsync doesn’t do the files in parallel so at such speeds, the process of open files, read chunks, write chunks, close files, repeat can add up. So you want the kernel to buffer as much of it as possible.
If you look at the disk graphs of both disks, you probably see a read spike, followed by a write spike on the target, instead of a smooth maxed out curve. Then the solution is increasing buffers and caching. Depending on the distro there’s a sysctl that may be on by default that limits the size of caches to prevent the “I wrote a 4GB file to my USB stick and now there’s 4GB of RAM used for it and it takes hours after finishing the transfer before it’s flushed to the stick”.
SATA III is gigabit, so the max speed is actually 600MB/s.
My mistake, though still, a 4tb transfer should take less than 2hr at 5Gb/s (IN THEORY) Thank you @Max_P for pointing this out a second time elsewhere: 6Gb/s is what the sata 3 interface is capable of, NOT what the DRIVE is capable of. The marketing material for this drive has clearly psyched me out, the actual transfer speed is 210Mb/s
The filesystem is EXT4 and shared as a SMB… OMV has a fair amount of ram allocated to it, like 16gb or something gratuitous. I’m guessing the way rsync does it’s transfers is the culprit, and I honestly can’t complain because the integrity of the transfer is crucial.
I’m interested in ksmbd… I chose SMB simply because I was using it across lunix/windows/mac devices and I was using OMV for managing it, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t switch to something better.
Honestly though, I don’t need faster transfers typically, I just happen to be switching out a drive right now. SMB through OMV has been perfectly sufficient otherwise.
ksmbd is still SMB, except it’s implemented within the Linux kernel. As a result, file transfers speeds are improved greatly compared to pure-Samba which runs only in userspace.
The second thing is, you need to check which SMB protocol you’re using, ideally you’d want to use at least SMB 3, anything older than that will be painfully slow.
Finally, I read in your other comment that you’re using spinning disks and a USB dock. That adds significant overheads.
The Ironwolf drive benchmarks starting at 250MB/s and slows down to 100MB/s as it reaches the end of the drive. (spinning disks gradually become slower the more full it becomes.) Now add file fragmentation + filesystem overheads (buffers, cluster size allocation etc) and the speeds could go down considerably.
Then there’s your SATA > USB dock - no dock would ever reach 5Gbps, that’s just false advertising - it’s only mentioning the theoretical protocol speed. In reality, you’d be seeing something like below 100MB/s write speeds for 128k sequential writes, but if your block size is smaller, expect far slower writes.
Combine all of the above and you can imagine just how much slower this whole thing can be.
For reference, see this benchmark as an example, to see what’s “normal” for a simple file transfer to a blank drive with no fragmentation: www.anandtech.com/show/6014/…/3
Looks like you have your answer, but there are a crazy number of possible issues.
The biggest cause is misreading the performance specs.
A partial list of other options:
Mechanical drives store data in rings. Outer rings have higher speeds than inner due to constant angular velocity.
Seeks cost a lot of throuput on mechanical drives.
Oversubscribed drive cables.
HBA issues.
PCIe data path conflicts
Slow RAM
RAM full or busy
Extra cpy within RAM
NUMA path issues (of drives are connected to different NUMA nodes. Not an issue on desktops.)
CPU too busy
Transfer software doing extra things
File system doing extra.
RAID doing extra.
NIC on a different NUMA node than HBA (can be good or bad).
NIC sharing the data path in a conflicting way.
There are others. Start with checking theoretical performance from data sheets.
Also, details matter, and I don’t have enough of them to guess.
I know very little about contributing to open source but appreciated reading this. Seems like often the interpersonal element is the biggest challenge and the author handled it well.
The zones are there so you can set your ports/services as needed for home, work, public wiffi etc. the idea is you leave your ports alone and just swap adapter to the zone you are working in. Network Manager has a quick toggle on wifi to do this from connection settings. So at home your laptop has ssh, smb open etc, when you connect to starbucks wifi you set wifi to public. The other part of zones is each as a fallback default you can specify. So if a port or service traffic doean’t match your home zone you can have if failover to default, in my case default is public. if that doean’t match either it can failover to “drop” or “block” etc. they have a heirachy.
if you are just dealing with cli it can be intimidating. You can try OpenSUSE in a VM and use the Yast Firewall Gui tool to play around with adapter, default, zones, services and ports and get familiar with the idea behind it.
I believe you may have misinterpereted my post. I wasn’t asking why zones exist, I was asking specifically why one cannot delete the default zones in Firewalld.
I see. I guess my point was they exist for a reason, as the default target of one zone handsover to the next zone (target) and then its target, in order to handle traffic not in your zone rules. Maybe you know that already. If you have a static machine at work mayne you don’t need home zone, but it is not causing “bloat”. You would also still need drop, block and so on. My thought is if you think firewalld is bloat, just use iptables directly.
I see. I guess my point was they exist for a reason, as the default target of one zone handsover to the next zone (target) and then its target, in order to handle traffic not in your zone rules.
Yes, I am aware of that. Just allow the user to specify the zones though. Why force the default ones?
but it is not causing “bloat”.
It is if it’s saving alternative configuration that will never be used.
It makes sense for them to include the Reject, drop, type for obvious reasons, the others seem like they asked “what will be the most common use cases for networks?” so they threw them in as work, home, public and trusted, external, dns , etc so that somebody starting out doesn’t have to create zones from scratch. I doubt having one extra zone takes up very much in the way of kb of space. compared to how much junk I have in my downloads folder that i should triage. What would be nice though would be a rename function, because we may have different Work rules depending on which workplace you are at that day with a system.
When I’m in a GUI, I like the Win95 UI paradigm. That’s one of the few good things that came out of Microsoft: I like the classic Windows look-and-feel. That’s why I run Mint / Cinnamon. I’ve tried minimalistic tiling window managers and I can’t stand them.
However - and that’s the weird thing - most of what I do in Cinnamon is open terminals with tmux that I… tile. And within one tmux pane or window, there’s a very good chance I’ll run vim with several files edited in split screens 🙂
I spend 75% of my time working in a terminal - sometimes in a real Linux console, but most of the time in a Cinnamon terminal. And I’ll do the minimalistic thing within the terminal because that’s how I’ve been rolling since the early eighties and it’s just how my workflow is most efficient. But I really like the Windows-like graphical environment around the terminals. Call me weird…
Sure, that is why we have defaults, but why force them? Why not create the defaults, and then allow the user to remove them if they wish?
You’re free to patch it out if you’re so inclined.
This is somewhat of a non-answer. Technically, yes, it is possible for a user to patch OSS as they see fit, but that does not excuse poor design desicions, nor is it necessarily fair to expect the user to do that.
If your setup allows you to be a productive member of society, you’re golden mental health wise. /s
You may want to get your eyes checked if watching HD video on a tiny screen seems preferable unless all your content fits your displays native resolution; I am fairly certain my eyes are terrible. Maybe that’s why I love that dark themes are becoming more popular.
Transparency is nice, but Windows Vista is partially what converted me to Linux. I dislike rounded corners too, since content is always rectangular.
I don’t know why no mainstream desktop OS really has a good mouse driven tiling setup out of the box. I have a dual screen setup, so I mostly just full screen apps and alt tab if needed which reduces distraction. If I’m trying to focus on a single thing, the second screen gets turned off.
I find myself becoming more minimalist over time as well. Society seems to be more distraction driven by the day, so having an OS that stays out of the way is a boon.
The whole WM landscape of Linux was a big turn off for me. I had used CDE on Solaris before and never really thought about choosing or customizing my DE. That was one of the big reasons I ended up loving OSX (no choice of WM and very few customization options, along with globally consistent hotkeys) and ended up using that as my primary GUI Unix environment, along with headless Linux for most of the last ~20 years.
Right. Actually one of the things I love about Linux is that it offers so many options so you can make your own combination to create the perfect system for your specific needs.
You can get all the visual distractions out of your way and tweak litterally everything to an incredible granular level. No other OS can pretend to be so user focused while staying so simple in appearance. You’re not adapting to your system, it’s built for you.
The problem I have with customization options is that I don’t want to customize it, and when I go looking for a setting to change, I don’t want to be drowning in options that I’ll never use. The way I always thought about it is when I buy a saw or a hammer, I go straight to using it. I don’t customize my saw or hammer. That’s not why I buy them. I buy them to build things with them. The tool is not the end goal. Similarly, the DE is not the end goal. I want to spend time getting work done, not spend time customizing my environment.
Recently though I’ve been looking around again a little bit, looking for a DE that has what I want out of the box. LXDE seems closest so far.
We’re exactly on the same page: “the tool is not the goal”. The only difference may be that I see chosing options for an app as options for a tool. If I want to cut wood or metal I need a different saw. Even though the tool is basically the same it doesn’t serve the same purpose. Hence I configure options once and for all, like I would consider which hardware I need exactly in terms of use, ergonomic, power… before buying it.
I don’t spend time tweaking the look of a tool because it’s doesn’t fit my approach of things anymore. As such I don’t even use a DE. But I feel the need to build the right tool (i.e. system app) I need to perform a job as efficiently as possible while keeping the tool itself minimalist and as invisible as possible. On my daily use I have tools that I couldn’t live without anymore but if you ask me a list I will either forgot them or put them at the bottom because I will not think about them right away since they became a second nature.
I certainly see the comfort of the out of the box approach and it can serve a lot of people. In my use case I just realize that - using the example above - it could be like using a wood saw on metal in some cases. It may work but not as good as you would expect to have the job done properly. Also, the fit them all approach means building an app with tons of options activated and I prefer to have available to me only the options I really need. The philosophy feels less bloated to me and I’m not overloading my system with stuff I’ll never use. It’s more time consuming at first to chose the right app but with time it became quick enough and it definitely save me way more time in the long run when I use my system.
linux
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.