From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bernhard Bitsch <bbitsch@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Core Update 159 (testing) report
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 23:38:08 +0200
Message-ID: <1cd9b796-21ae-b2f1-00f3-a347dc1ffa91@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <1e3acd97-e4e2-671c-9d4e-ebb547be6db2@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1455854743526166334=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============1455854743526166334==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

Am 04.08.2021 um 20:37 schrieb Peter M=C3=BCller:
> Hello *,
>=20
> Core Update 159 (testing, see:=20
> https://blog.ipfire.org/post/ipfire-2-25-core-update-159-available-for-test=
ing)=20
>=20
> is running here for about 24 hours by now, without any noticeable issue=20
> during after the upgrade procedure
> so far.
>=20
> While upgrading to the testing release, I noticed the Pakfire CGI not=20
> displaying the usual log and progress
> indicator. Instead, it appeared to have stalled while downloading the=20
> update itself - this is a rather aesthetic
> issue, but might confuse users because they could suspect their IPFire=20
> machine crashed.
>=20
> Having installed the upgrade, the Pakfire CGI required a reload to=20
> properly display Core Update 159 as being
> installed, and a reboot being necessary. This may or may not be related=20
> to the missing upgrade procedure
> indicator.
>=20
> Having rebooted, I enjoy the Linux kernel 5.10.x ever since. On my=20
> testing machine (running an Intel N3150 CPU),
> it improved the following aspects:
>=20
> - IRQ load decreased significantly, from about 5 to 2.2 percent on my=20
> machine.
> - Governing the CPU frequency now works better - before, the machine=20
> used to run at maximum frequency all the
>  =C2=A0 time, despite cpufreq(|utils) being installed and active.
> - Measured latencies to my PPPoE gateway are now more evenly, most=20
> probably due to increased networking
>  =C2=A0 schedulers or other improved algorithms. While this is not a=20
> noticeable change in the daily usage, it can
>  =C2=A0 be measured for VoIP calls and VPN connections as well. This might =

> affect IPFire users sitting behind more
>  =C2=A0 unreliable connections even more.
>=20
> Speaking of VoIP calls, I am currently unable to test if the sporadic=20
> broken RTP streams occur again. They
> were never really reproducible well, and got more rare after Core Update=20
> 157 - let's hope kernel 5.10.x finally
> fixes this. If not, I will report back.
>=20
> IPS performance hasn't improved much on my machine: The bandwidth=20
> available to clients behind IPFire still differs
> by orders of magnitude if the IPS is enabled or not. To be fair, my=20
> testing machine is not very well equipped
> (passive NICs and a weak Intel CPU - yuck), and you can't have your cake=20
> and eat it. I am not complaining. :-)
>=20
> Skimming through IPFire's web interface, I noticed a small glitch=20
> regarding the CPU load graph: In some occasions,
> it shows the CPU to be running on full load (see attached sample). After=20
> reloading the graph, the load is
> actually fine. This looks confusing at first, too, but does not seem to=20
> indicate something more serious.
>

I do see this glitch in Core Update 158 also (sometimes). I think it is=20
generated by the temporarily load for graph generation.

Regards,
Bernhard

> To cut it short: I look forward to the release of Core Update 159.=20
> Special thanks of mine go to Arne for making
> this updated Linux kernel possible. :-)
>=20
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter M=C3=BCller

--===============1455854743526166334==--