Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dariusz Piatkowski

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
Internet / Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« on: April 22, 2018, 10:04:37 pm »
Here is what I shared on the FF testing email list regarding my experience with GA1.1, note that this was in the context of people reporting HIGH CPU cycles even when FF was being minimized:

Quote
...For what it's worth, this behaviour seems to have gotten worse with the  latest GA1.1 release.

Not sure if there is any co-relation between the two, but my overall CPU  usage is now noticably higher. Basically, on a 5 core machine I am seeing a  consistent 15-20% average (over the past 1 min - as reported by the 'CPU  Monitor' utility) usage. When I view this in the 'MPCPU Mon' OS/2 utility,  with the refresh of 150 ms I see an on-going CPU spike taking place across all cores.

Having said that, the GA1.1 drop overall, while feeling a tad slower, does  seem to be more stable. I noticed memory consumption seems to have slowed down, and while the overall steady CPU utilization is higher it no longer  seems to increase as total runtime of the process increases.

In the past the CPU utilization used to slowly climb over the hours FF was  up and running, until after about 10-15 hrs (depending of course on the  amount of usage) the CPU spikes became so consistently large that I needed  to kill the process and re-start. Now, as far as the past 3 days of usage  indicate, that is no longer so pronounced...

Besides this, what has definitely gotten WORSE here is the YouTube playback. Prior to this upgrade I was able to finally get a smooth video & sound playback. The sound issue (used to loop after some time of playback) was solved by an upgrade to the latest UniAudio drivers. The video is only playable when using the h264ify add-on, otherwise the VP9 video codec completely fails, the video playback window simply stops updating, no sound, no further video.

2
Internet / Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« on: April 20, 2018, 08:59:50 pm »
Doug,

I am trying to install the RPM_REQUIREMENTS and received this error message
...
I have received this "Rpmdb checksum is invalid:... " message a number of times when trying to install other packages - for example when installing the required packages for VLC 3.0.1

I assume  "checksum invalid" is not a good thing.

Actually, as it happens I'm seeing this at command line as well, and it is known NOT to be a problem, meaning, the RPM packge should have installed successfully.

On the other hand, if you install through the ANPM app it will handle this error/warning message and you will not see it.

3
Internet / Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« on: April 20, 2018, 05:28:07 pm »
Hey Matt,

...The 7 zip format is a pain as simple minded me can't figure out how to unzip 7Z files.  What a pain...

What zip/unzip util are you using?

My ZipCntrl app can't handle 7z either, but luckily ArchiveViewer can and you can get it here => http://www.altsan.org/programming/os2/arcview_22.wpi

4
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 20, 2018, 05:08:59 pm »
Hi Valery,

...2Dariusz Piatkowski:

> Yup, similar configuration to what I currently have. My operating partitions are all HPFS386, the nightly backup partitions are HPFS386 as well but no CACHE on them. Neither is the RAMDISK, else it defeats the purpse.

You still use HPFS386 as your main file system? Why not JFS? HPFS386 has limitation of 64 GB max partition size, like ordinary HPFS driver. So, how do you use it with modern hard disks?

I moved to JFS 17 years ago, since my partitions are all bigger than 64 GB....

Yeah, still using HPFS386 here mostly because of how long I have had a single install of my OS/2...literally since the Warp3 days, followed by Warp4 upgrade, then CP releases, move to SMP hardware and finally the ACPI stuff.

I did attempt to deploy JFS once, that caused massive data corruption, I suspect the HPFS386 and JFS simply had conflicts. It was a painfull recovery and since my hardware has remained the same (no HD changes, etc) I have not had a reason to re-do all of this.

Now, this may change very soon. I have a Samsung SSD (850 Evo) standing by and as soon as I off-load a bunch of the stuff from my DATA partitions onto the LAN NAS I will be deploying it. At that time it would make sense to take a stab at the JFS thing again.

5
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 20, 2018, 05:03:52 pm »
Hi Ben!

Hi Ben

My config.sys entry is a simple one; "IFS=Y:\IMB386FS\HPFS386.IFS /A:R" where "Y:" is the boot drive and "R" is the RAMDisk.


Is the "Y:\IMB386FS\" above a copy'n'paste typo?

Typo unfortunately.

I tried it on two different installations on two different machines with the same error.

I vaguely recall from the distant past, that HPFS386.IFS wouldn't load without some sort of memory restrictions... virtualmemorylimit adjustment or something like that. But I have that setting tweaked for other programs and I have no intention of changing it..

I take it that file system drivers, (*.IFS), can be loaded from anywhere not  just from config.sys path statements in the libpath, path dpath?

I guess that I have no choice but to use the basic HPFS.


So the HPFS386 module is not solely made up of the IFS and the INI files, there of course are a number of DLLs which make up the full solution.

Here is what I currently have in my \IBM386FS directory:

Code: [Select]
Directory of G:\ibm386fs

10-29-17   7:07p     <DIR>           0  .
 4-19-18   1:25p     <DIR>           0  ..
 9-30-03   6:11p     25701         403  BOOTSH.EXE
 9-30-03   6:11p      1547         221  bsh.msg
 9-30-03   6:11p      3958         222  bshh.msg
 9-30-03   6:11p      3255         221  cac.msg
 9-30-03   6:11p      3497         222  cach.msg
 9-30-03   6:11p     27237         405  CACHE386.EXE
 9-30-03   6:11p     10804         224  DISKFT.SYS
 3-11-12   8:08p      2164           0  files_latest
 9-30-03   6:11p     10346         221  hfs.msg
 9-30-03   6:11p     33464         222  hfsh.msg
 9-30-03   6:11p      6845         404  HPFS386.DLL
 3-23-04  10:17a    259689           0  hpfs386.ifs
11-30-00   6:31p    259177           0  hpfs386.ifs.53_43
 9-30-03   6:11p    259691         225  hpfs386.ifs.53_44_15
 3-23-04  10:17a    259689           0  hpfs386.ifs.53_47
 4-17-18  10:49a     12232         268  hpfs386.ini
 8-30-14  10:42a      7154           0  hpfs386.log
 9-30-03   6:11p       462         225  hpfs386.txt
10-26-08  11:38a      1313          86  hpfsperf IP_8508.TXT
10-26-08  11:36a      8758          75  hpfsperf.cmd
 9-30-03   6:11p     39725         355  hva.exe
10-10-01   3:11p      7022           0  MAILSLOT.DLL
 9-30-03   6:11p      7020         405  MAILSLOT.DLL.53_43
 3-23-04   8:40p    363811          49  netapi.dll
 9-30-03   6:11p    348965         403  NETAPI.DLL.53_43
 3-23-04   8:40p    363811          49  NETAPI.DLL.53_47
 9-30-03   6:11p     23040         224  netapi.lib
 3-23-04   8:37p     63636          61  NETAPI32.DLL
 9-30-03   6:11p     63766         417  NETAPI32.DLL.53_43
 3-23-04   8:37p     63636          61  NETAPI32.DLL.53_47
10-10-01   6:44p      6588           0  NETSPOOL.DLL
 9-30-03   6:11p      6586         405  NETSPOOL.DLL.53_43
 1-01-13  10:51a     <DIR>        1037  newest
 1-01-13  10:51a     <DIR>        1144  original
 9-30-03   6:11p     26629         359  PREPACL.EXE
 9-30-03   6:11p      2081         255  readme.now
       38 file(s)    2583299 bytes used
                   3937073 K bytes free

Yeah, there are several versions listed there as a result of my previous work to narrow this configuration down to the most 'current' release.

Anyways, the IFS statement you show should be sufficient to load HPFS386. The HPFS386.INI file then brings specific controls into place, I've attached my version to the post for your review.

You certainly need the \IBM386FS to be present in your LIBPATH statement. I have it also included in the PATH and DPATH, not sure if this was necessary or not, but it seems to work fine here.

Further on, in your CONFIG.SYS you also need the following: 'CALL=G:\OS2\CMD.EXE /Q /C G:\IBM386FS\CACHE386.EXE >NUL', which will kick off the CACHE386 exec to, I believe, read in the HPFS386.INI definitions.

There are some issues you may run into, certainly the size of the HPFS386 cache has a lot to do with this. In the past, I used to run that cache as big as 500 Meg (only b/c the Win NTFS can run much bigger and I wanted to compare some things), but as more and more software piled onto my machine I had to bring this down. Currently I have this configured for 64Meg only, seems to work fine with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=2560 in the CONFIG.SYS working fine. I have booted up the machine with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=3072 as well w/o any problems.

6
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 20, 2018, 04:49:25 pm »
Hi Lars,

OK, step by step explanation:

1) do you ONLY have HPFS386 partitions on your HD ? Or do you also have JFS partitions ?

Only using HPFS386 partitions. The only other IFSs deployed are: FAT32 & CDFS, but the CDFS is a standard these days and FAT32 is specific to just using memory cards/thumb drives.

Quote
2) have you been copying from G: to ramdisk ?

Yes, G: is my boot drive, I am copying various sized files from G: to ramdisk, which is drive Y:

Quote
3) What driveletter does your ramdisk have ? It seems that it is neither F: nor G: so what is it ?

Ramdisk is drive Y:

Quote
4) What is the switch to cache386 to explicitely turn on/off caching for a specific drive letter ?

Issuing 'cache386' @CLI shows the following:

Code: [Select]
[G:\]cache386
Valid options for CACHE386 (x is an optional drive letter):

/OPTIONS[:x]         Display current configuration
/STATS[:C|:D]        Display, clear, or dynamically display statistics
/LAZY[:x][:ON|:OFF]  Enable or disable lazy writing
/MAXAGE[:x]:n        Change msDataAge to n milliseconds
/BUFFERIDLE[:x]:n    Change msIdleBuf to n milliseconds

If no drive (x) is given, the option will apply to all HPFS drives.

Each option may be abbreviated to a single letter, for example:

CACHE386 /B:D:1000    (sets BufferIdle to 1000 for drive D)

So, to turn on the cache (lazy write really as per the option listing, but it appears to actually behave as if that controls the CACHE function) you issue 'cache386 /l:y:on', which can then be checked by issuing the following 'cache386 /o:y':

Code: [Select]
[G:\]cache386 /o:y
CACHE386 options
Cache Size    65536 KB

Drive Y:
   Lazy write:              ON   MaxAge:          15000 msec
                                 BufferIdle:       5000 msec

As best as I can tell issuing 'cache386 /l:y:off' disables or enables the HPFS386 cache:

Code: [Select]
[G:\]cache386 /o:y
CACHE386 options
Cache Size    65536 KB

Drive Y:
   Lazy write:             OFF

Therefore, the previously reported results are specific to the above method of turning on the HPFS386 cache (lazy write) for the ramdisk drive 'Y:'.

As far as I can tell there is nothing else in the HPFS386 module which allows one to explicitly control the cache function, instead I believe it is the 'LAZY write' control that actually does this.

7
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 20, 2018, 04:28:33 pm »
...It's not easy to write a good installer, and the skills have more to do with test engineering than software engineering. OS4 would be especially challenging because any error leaves the installation unable to boot. The target installations are diverse -- OS/2, eCS and ArcaOS.

Neil's got a great point about the installer. Given that we now have several options available as far as picking the OS2 loader of choice, I would actually be hesitant to allow an installer to do this type of stuff.

Yeah, I know...may seem counter-intuitive, but I think there are far too many things that could go just 'wrong enough' to prevent my OS/2 machine from booting, that would make me feel comfortable doing this any other way.

Funny thing is, the request for additional info was literally my feedback to the OS4 folks in one of the other threads. But I think what I was talking about was a lot more like the stuff Lars mentioned here, that being: give me a better understanding of the internal design/implementation of the changes so that I can feel more confident in my decision to pursue this approach.

Having said all of the above, the actual (manual) install of the OS4 solution is not all that hard. The READMEs included do cover it fairly well, but yeah, go through them at least a couple of times. I think most of time would be spent in adjusting the default configuration, so getting yourself multiple CONFIG.SYS instances to give you the flexibility to either boot with the OS4 loader, or the default OS2 or maybe the AOS one.

8
Internet / Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« on: April 20, 2018, 04:19:23 pm »
OK, what is happenning here??? LOL  :o

FF 45.9.0 (rel-3 I believe), which brought us up to GA 1.1 was published 2 days ago, yet the forum is DEAD QUIET...you people are starting to freak me out...!!!

C'mon, get out there, install, is the result better then previous releases? https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases

Truth be told, other than the email notification I get on the testers' list, I did not see any other announcements...so I figured I'd post here. I did the d/l through the above link, as a ZIP file, un-packed to a non-RPM location, I do not see the official RPM package out yet, but then again, I am only looking at the public netlabs-rel repo.

Anyways, it's out there...check it out, I figured I'd give it a few days' worth of runtime before sharing my assessment with the wider audience of the forum.

9
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 18, 2018, 05:25:45 pm »
Hi Lars!

Umm...sorry...I completely do not get what led you to make the below statements, but allow me to re-iterate what I previously stated in my response to your post.

Originally you stated the following:

Why would you use HPFS386 on a ramdisk anyway ?

I then answered by providing the empirical evidence as per my tests:

You would think you are correct in that thinking. I would not use HPFS386 on a ramdisk if I had a choice, but it is a HPFS or HPFS386 type of a decision, so I have no choice in this matter, I am forced to run HPFS386 only. Since HPFS386 allows you to shut the cache off for the ramdisk created by QSINIT itself, as best as I can tell this should not a problem.

..and yet the numbers I see tell an entirely different story...

I am basing this last conclusion on the output I see from 'cache386 /o' command and throughput numbers I see from 'Lars Commander' during a file copy operation. If I then compare the speed throughput for the ramdisk with the cache ON and OFF I see the following:

1) HPFS386 cache ON - 600 Meg file copy from HD to ramdisk
Peak => 108,586K
Avg => 104,278K
Last => 108,420K

2) HPFS386 cache OFF
Peak => 53,079K
Avg => 26,325K
Last => 27,736K

...and that led you to conclude the following (which is what I do not understand at all):

You leave it completely unclear if "cache386 /o" turns off the cache for ALL HPFS386 formatted partitions or only for the Ramdisk. Then you leave it completely unclear if you were copying from/to a HPFS386 formatted partition to/from a HPFS386 formatted partition or to/from a partition unaffected by the cache setting.
I have the impression that both source and target partitions were HPFS386 partitions ...

So I thought it was pretty clear that in the context of the thread we were talking about the suitability of turning on the HPFS386 cache for a ramdisk, I mean after all, your original post response (which I quoted above for ease of reference) specifically stated so, or where you simply questioning whether one would want to use HPFS385 filesystem as opposed to something like FAT, FAT32 or JFS???

Alright, so let me confirm: YES, the HPFS386 cache is being turned ON for ramdisk and I am attempting to assess the impact on ramdisk performance with the HPFS386 cache being in either ON or OFF setting.

Further on, my reference to 'cache386 /o', given the context of the conversation, specifically relates to what cache386 output provides as applicable to the ramdisk, such as:

Code: [Select]
[G:\]cache386 /o
CACHE386 options
Cache Size    65536 KB

Drive F:
   Lazy write:             OFF

Drive G:
   Lazy write:              ON   MaxAge:          15000 msec
                                 BufferIdle:       5000 msec

In the above example this shows that HPFS386 cache is active for the G: drive (which is my boot drive), and it is not active for F: drive, which is my maintenance partition.

Therefore:

You leave it completely unclear if "cache386 /o" turns off the cache for ALL HPFS386 formatted partitions or only for the Ramdisk...

...as explained above, the 'cache386 /o' is applicable to the status of the HPFS386 cache for ramdisk only.

Further on:

...Then you leave it completely unclear if you were copying from/to a HPFS386 formatted partition to/from a HPFS386 formatted partition or to/from a partition unaffected by the cache setting...

...which is not the case since I specifically stated the following:

...
1) HPFS386 cache ON - 600 Meg file copy from HD to ramdisk
...

Given that I am looking to answer the 'should I turn ON the HPFS386 cache for ramdisk' question only, I would not be shutting OFF my physical HD HPFS386 cache, it simply would not make sense to do so since when the machine is in production mode it would never run without the HPFS386 cache being turned ON.

OK, I hope that clarified whatever may have been causing confusion.

10
Programming / Re: GCC - how to enable multi-threading in CPP?
« on: April 18, 2018, 06:31:41 am »
OK, so attempting to build a super-simple multi-threaded app:

Code: [Select]
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>

using namespace std;

void hello_world()
{
  cout << "Hello from thread!\n";
}

int main()
{
  thread t(hello_world);
  t.join();
  return 0;
}

Compiling with the following GCC options:
'-march=amdfam10 -O2 -pipe -v -idirafter g:/code/tools/toolkit/h -Zomf -std=c++11'

...produces the following compile time error:

Code: [Select]
G:\code\source\GCC\threads2.cpp:13:3: error: 'thread' was not declared in this scope
   thread t(hello_world);
   ^
G:\code\source\GCC\threads2.cpp:14:3: error: 't' was not declared in this scope
   t.join();

So what's the secret? I see a lot of similar problems on the Winx version of their GCC port (MinGW), mostly stating that the thread library does not implement the native threads...is that a problem for us on OS/2 as well?

11
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 18, 2018, 05:35:30 am »
Hi dixie,

/1 forces system to use ancient STRAT1 method. This is fatal for most of file system drivers. Actually, only kernel's FAT implementation and HPFS.IFS able to use it.

HPFS386 looks more advanced as well as JFS. Nothing to do here...

One more thing I wanted to ask a clarification for.

You can create a ramdisk by using the following command in your QSSETUP.CMD: 'ramdisk y: hpfs', and this appears sufficient enough to give you a working HPFS formatted ramdisk. So is there any real need and/or benefit to running this command which I see mentioned several times in the readme as well: ' format Y: /quick /fs:hpfs /q'?

This is a stand-alone format of a ramdisk as a HPFS filesystem, I can only imagine one would want to perhaps use it in some situations, but I do not think this is necessary in any way, is that correct?

12
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 17, 2018, 06:32:05 pm »
You can try File i/o test in sysbench :) I found one, was launched on HPFS386 too...

So here are the results of the Sysbench 'File I/O' test that I reported the results for in my previous update. Take a look at them, they are pretty close, but at times significantly different. I think what may be getting muddied up by Sysbench is this whole 'Cached' vs 'Uncached' result...I have no idea how Sysbench controls that.

13
Applications / Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« on: April 17, 2018, 05:10:44 pm »
OK, OS4User, time for me to get off of my butt and get the debug info to troubleshoot the hard trap right after PMSHELL comes up. With FreeRDP making progress and VBox supporting extra features of the OS4KRNL I have no reason to delay further.

I re-read the Wiki you posted above and will get the debug kernel setup and ready to go. Beyond this though, is there anything specific I need to do in order to capture the "moment" the system traps?

My assumption is that maybe through the debug kernel I have some way to communicate with the OS/2 box, but even if that is the case, once the trap occurs, how do I know what additional information to log? Can you provide any 'working instructions' for this? Even high-level stuff might help...

Thanks!

14
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 17, 2018, 04:43:18 pm »
Hi Lars,

Why would you use HPFS386 on a ramdisk anyway ?
Optimizing sector accesses is irrelevant for a ram disk. Caching will even make things worse: you waste additional memory for no gain in speed (after all, on a ram disk, each data sector is already in memory ...)
And it does not look like the OP cares about the file access protection features that HPFS386 offers on top of HPFS.

However, I don't know if you can load HPFS.IFS and HPFS386.IFS at the same time. Most likely not ...

You would think you are correct in that thinking. I would not use HPFS386 on a ramdisk if I had a choice, but it is a HPFS or HPFS386 type of a decision, so I have no choice in this matter, I am forced to run HPFS386 only. Since HPFS386 allows you to shut the cache off for the ramdisk created by QSINIT itself, as best as I can tell this should not a problem.

..and yet the numbers I see tell an entirely different story...

I am basing this last conclusion on the output I see from 'cache386 /o' command and throughput numbers I see from 'Lars Commander' during a file copy operation. If I then compare the speed throughput for the ramdisk with the cache ON and OFF I see the following:

1) HPFS386 cache ON - 600 Meg file copy from HD to ramdisk
Peak => 108,586K
Avg => 104,278K
Last => 108,420K

2) HPFS386 cache OFF
Peak => 53,079K
Avg => 26,325K
Last => 27,736K

I specifically selected a large source file for this initial test so that it is bigger than my HPFS386 cache of 64Meg. Yet despite this, I am seeing the same level of performance difference across both small and large files, that being nearly 4x faster throughput on cached ramdisk.

Lars, unless your throughput measure is being skewed by something else, the numbers here tell a different story. The only negative downside to keeping the HPFS386 cache on for the ramdisk is the 'pollution' of the true cache for the other real HDs in my system.

Sysbench (0.9.5d) 'Disk I/O' test is completely messed up by the ramdisk, the only number that actually comes back is the bus xfer which is 355MByte/s. However, the 'File I/O' results give 216157 for non-cache and 260371 for cached configurations.

Therefore, in the end, given what I see above and the fact that most files tossed on the ramdisk will normally be small (therefore implying the true cache pollution to be small) it actually seems like leaving the HPFS386 cache ON for the ramdisk gives the better performance.

15
Setup & Installation / Re: RAM disk and temp folders...what else?
« on: April 17, 2018, 03:46:36 pm »
Hey Doug,

...The way that I use the RAMDISK, is to use all memory above what OS/2 uses normally, for the RAMDISK. Then, I use HPFS for the RAMDISK (I also make the cache as small as possible - 64K- because the cache slows it down). All of my other partitions are JFS (which is probably better than HPFS386 anyway), except for one that is FAT32, for sharing files with windows.

Yup, similar configuration to what I currently have. My operating partitions are all HPFS386, the nightly backup partitions are HPFS386 as well but no CACHE on them. Neither is the RAMDISK, else it defeats the purpse.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27