Hello,

Am 04.08.2021 um 20:37 schrieb Peter Müller:
> Hello *,
> 
> Core Update 159 (testing, see: 
> https://blog.ipfire.org/post/ipfire-2-25-core-update-159-available-for-testing) 
> 
> is running here for about 24 hours by now, without any noticeable issue 
> during after the upgrade procedure
> so far.
> 
> While upgrading to the testing release, I noticed the Pakfire CGI not 
> displaying the usual log and progress
> indicator. Instead, it appeared to have stalled while downloading the 
> update itself - this is a rather aesthetic
> issue, but might confuse users because they could suspect their IPFire 
> machine crashed.
> 
> Having installed the upgrade, the Pakfire CGI required a reload to 
> properly display Core Update 159 as being
> installed, and a reboot being necessary. This may or may not be related 
> to the missing upgrade procedure
> indicator.
> 
> Having rebooted, I enjoy the Linux kernel 5.10.x ever since. On my 
> testing machine (running an Intel N3150 CPU),
> it improved the following aspects:
> 
> - IRQ load decreased significantly, from about 5 to 2.2 percent on my 
> machine.
> - Governing the CPU frequency now works better - before, the machine 
> used to run at maximum frequency all the
>    time, despite cpufreq(|utils) being installed and active.
> - Measured latencies to my PPPoE gateway are now more evenly, most 
> probably due to increased networking
>    schedulers or other improved algorithms. While this is not a 
> noticeable change in the daily usage, it can
>    be measured for VoIP calls and VPN connections as well. This might 
> affect IPFire users sitting behind more
>    unreliable connections even more.
> 
> Speaking of VoIP calls, I am currently unable to test if the sporadic 
> broken RTP streams occur again. They
> were never really reproducible well, and got more rare after Core Update 
> 157 - let's hope kernel 5.10.x finally
> fixes this. If not, I will report back.
> 
> IPS performance hasn't improved much on my machine: The bandwidth 
> available to clients behind IPFire still differs
> by orders of magnitude if the IPS is enabled or not. To be fair, my 
> testing machine is not very well equipped
> (passive NICs and a weak Intel CPU - yuck), and you can't have your cake 
> and eat it. I am not complaining. :-)
> 
> Skimming through IPFire's web interface, I noticed a small glitch 
> regarding the CPU load graph: In some occasions,
> it shows the CPU to be running on full load (see attached sample). After 
> reloading the graph, the load is
> actually fine. This looks confusing at first, too, but does not seem to 
> indicate something more serious.
>

I do see this glitch in Core Update 158 also (sometimes). I think it is 
generated by the temporarily load for graph generation.

Regards,
Bernhard

> To cut it short: I look forward to the release of Core Update 159. 
> Special thanks of mine go to Arne for making
> this updated Linux kernel possible. :-)
> 
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter Müller