Jackd Problems -- alsa_pcm: xrun of at least 1227061150613.504 msecs
by Jonathan Ryshpan
In the past I've never had any problems running jackd. Now I'm getting
a very large number of messages reading:
**** alsa_pcm: xrun of at least 1227061150613.504 msecs
I'm running F9 on an x86_64 system with all updates installed.
Pulseaudio is not running. Jackd is started via qjackctl. No past
problems with audio beyond the usual conflicts between pulseaudio and
firefox.
Questions:
(1) What exactly does this message mean? An "xrun" is a buffer under-
or over-run -- but what does the time interval represent?
(2) Whatever the time interval means, it looks rather large.
1227061150613.504 msec is many days (or maybe years if msec means
millisec and not microsec) This looks like a misconfiguration of some
kind or a missing component. Any idea what it might be?
Here is the start of the qjackctl log of the session.
18:53:38.317 Patchbay deactivated.
18:53:38.364 Statistics reset.
18:53:38.566 ALSA connection graph change.
18:53:38.752 ALSA connection change.
18:53:41.050 Startup script...
18:53:41.050 artsshell -q terminate
18:53:42.247 Startup script terminated with exit status=256.
18:53:42.261 JACK is starting...
18:53:42.262 /usr/bin/jackd -R -dalsa -dhw:0 -r48000 -p1024 -n2
18:53:42.267 JACK was started with PID=3423.
jackd 0.109.2
Copyright 2001-2005 Paul Davis and others.
jackd comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for details
JACK compiled with System V SHM support.
loading driver ..
apparent rate = 48000
creating alsa driver ... hw:0|hw:0|1024|2|48000|0|0|nomon|swmeter|-|
32bit
control device hw:0
configuring for 48000Hz, period = 1024 frames (21.3 ms), buffer = 2
periods
ALSA: final selected sample format for capture: 16bit little-endian
ALSA: use 2 periods for capture
ALSA: final selected sample format for playback: 16bit little-endian
ALSA: use 2 periods for playback
**** alsa_pcm: xrun of at least 1227061150613.504 msecs
**** alsa_pcm: xrun of at least 1227061150613.504 msecs
**** alsa_pcm: xrun of at least 1227061150613.504 msecs
**** alsa_pcm: xrun of at least 1227061150613.504 msecs
...
15 years, 3 months
sound stops working on F10
by Genes MailLists
Sound is a bit quirky - sometimes i hear things sometimes I dont.
Now it has stopped working - a reboot fixes it. I do see this in the
logs ...
Jan 2 14:46:02 me pulseaudio[3227]: module-alsa-sink.c: ALSA woke us
up to write new d
ata to the device, but there was actually nothing to write! Most likely
this is an ALSA
driver bug. Please report this issue to the PulseAudio developers.
Running F10, gnome, fully updated.
Any suggestions how to make it come back without rebooting ??
thanks!
15 years, 3 months
Yum problem on fedora fc10
by William W. Austin
I have three machines on which I installed fc 10 about 2 weeks ago.
Two of them are identical as to hardware and the other is a good deal
larger (more memory, more disk space, phenom 4-way cpu) all are x86_64
machines previously running either fc 7, 8, or 9.
On two of the machines I wiped the drive on which I installed /, /
tmp, /usr, and /var, and on the third (the 'larger' machine) I added a
new 1TB drive to hold them (and other things).
So far so good, and the install - using the same install DVD - went
smoothly on all 3 of them.
However, on two of the machines (one of the twins and the "large" box)
yum works just fine. On the third - which according to "rpm -qa" has
exactly the same packages installed - yum fails every time with a
message "public key for <rpm name> is not installed".
Obviously I have hosed up something here on that third machine, but I
haven't found it yet and it's driving me batty. I have gone through
documentation until I'm going blind without picking up a clue.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to write me
privately if you prefer and I'll summarize for the list later.
Thanks
- wwa
--
william w. austin waustin(a)speakeasy.net
"life is just another phase i'm going through. this time, anyway ..."
15 years, 3 months
new F10 kernel borked?
by Fred Smith
On Fedora 10:
I just got a new kernel, apparently today, and when I rebooted I was greeted
by a bunch of text messages about problems with the LVM, and about bad
mount option "relatime".
true, I do have relatime set in /etc/fstab because I'm running on a SSD
in an eeepc 901. But it has worked fine up until now.
So I boot up the rescue disc and remove relatime. reboot. it STILL
complains about relatime being an unknown option, and there's no
relatime (or atime or noatime) to be seen even NEAR /etc/fstab..
Scratch head. reboot several more times.
notice two choices in the GRUB menu, when there was only one last I
noticed, decide to boot the other one. Voila, the previous kernel boots,
even with the relatime option re-added.
new "feature" in the kernel? Or what?
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
I can do all things through Christ
who strengthens me.
------------------------------ Philippians 4:13 -------------------------------
15 years, 3 months
Where are my messages between Dec 20 and yesterday?
by Ambrogio De Lorenzo
Hi all,
I didn't received any messages from this list.
The last seen was Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:36:30 +0100.
Yesterday I received 2 new messages.
I receive from other lists messages to the same address, apparently
without problems.
How can I examine this problem?
Tnx to all,
and happy new year
Ambrogio
15 years, 3 months
Java Support in 64-bit F10
by Dave Feustel
I've been running 32-bit F9 and I'm getting ready to upgrade to F10.
I would like to upgrade to 64-bit F10, but not if I lose Java support.
What is the state of Java in 64-bit F10?
Are there any other gotcha's in switching from 32-bit to 64-bit Fedora?
Thanks.
15 years, 3 months
Fedora 10 repositories question
by Gerhard Magnus
I'm in the process of upgrading FC9 to FC10. (1) In order to get the
default Fedora 10 rpms am I correct in assuming that I don't have to
download any more GPG keys? (2) When I was running FC9 I used the livna
depository for some third-party software. Has livna become part of
RPMfusion for FC10 so that to get these rpms I only need to set up
RPMFusion; i.e.
rpm -ivh
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-stable.... \http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-stable.noarch.rpm
rpm --import /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rpmfusion-*
Thanks for the help! --Jerry
15 years, 3 months
Yet More Yum Woe
by Beartooth
"yum update" on one of my F10 machines looks all right, even
through the download -- and then I get this :
(39/39): perl-5.10.0-52.fc10.i386.rpm | 14 MB 01:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 140 kB/s | 44 MB 05:18
============================== Entering rpm code ========================
Running rpm_check_debug
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
mono(gdk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
mono(glade-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
mono(glib-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
mono(gtk-sharp) is needed by (installed) sysinfo-0.7-1.i386
Complete!
(1, [u'Please report this error in http://yum.baseurl.org/report'])
I haven't the faintest idea what that means; so I google the
error line.
It sends me to a wad of sites on Fedora-forum (which I never have
been able to use; but I see there are discussions back at least to 2007).
So I go to that yum site, and it wants me to register; I try.
Three different browsers tell me its certificate is no good, and
urge me strongly not to go there.
I try yum update again; same result. One of the forum threads
that I do get to suggests the OP remove something. I try "yum remove
mono*" -- and get this :
Dependencies Resolved
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================================================
Removing:
mono-addins i386 0.3.1-2.2.fc10 installed 715 k
mono-core i386 2.0.1-12.fc10 installed 25 M
mono-data i386 2.0.1-12.fc10 installed 3.8 M
mono-data-sqlite i386 2.0.1-12.fc10 installed 350 k
mono-extras i386 2.0.1-12.fc10 installed 637 k
mono-web i386 2.0.1-12.fc10 installed 8.2 M
mono-winforms i386 2.0.1-12.fc10 installed 7.6 M
Removing for dependencies:
evolution-sharp i386 0.18.1-1.fc10 installed 544 k
f-spot i386 0.4.4-6.fc10 installed 7.9 M
gmime-sharp i386 2.2.21-1.fc10 installed 194 k
gnome-desktop-sharp i386 2.24.0-3.fc10 installed 780 k
gnome-sharp i386 2.24.0-1.fc10 installed 1.3 M
gsf-sharp i386 0.8.1-8.fc10 installed 140 k
gtk-sharp2 i386 2.12.4-1.fc10 installed 2.6 M
ndesk-dbus i386 0.6.1a-2.fc9 installed 126 k
ndesk-dbus-glib i386 0.4.1-3.fc9 installed 11 k
sysinfo i386 0.7-1 installed 336 k
taglib-sharp i386 2.0.3.0-7.fc10 installed 433 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install 0 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 18 Package(s)
Some of that looks very serious; I don't want to futz with things
named sysinfo nor gnome-desktop-*. (I might, but I once did try some such
thing, long ago, and it removed yum! I had one devil of a time with
that ...)
So am I stymied?? (Three other F10 machines so far have updated
just fine btw.)
--
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.
15 years, 3 months
F10: new kernel breaks audio (snd-hda-intel)
by Alfredo Ferrari
Hi
I have a Dell D830, with F10 fully up-to-date. The kernel update of two
days ago (2.6.27.9-159.fc10) has broken audio on this machine.
If I reboot on the previous kernel, 2.6.27.7-134.fc10, audio works like a
charm. With the new kernel everything works with no error message, however
no sound is output, like the volume is muted or set to very low values.
I have checked all volume sliders, both for pulseaudio and alsa and all of
them are at maximum and unmuted. I am using the PAE kernel if that
matters.
The audio driver is snd-hda-intel, and the output of lspci -v reads:
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) HD Audio Controller (rev 02)
Subsystem: Dell Device 01fe
Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 21
Memory at f6ffc000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2
Capabilities: [60] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit+ Count=1/1 Enable-
Capabilities: [70] Express Root Complex Integrated Endpoint, MSI 00
Capabilities: [100] Virtual Channel <?>
Capabilities: [130] Root Complex Link <?>
Kernel driver in use: HDA Intel
Kernel modules: snd-hda-intel
Is anybody else having the same problem?
Thanks
Alfredo Ferrari
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Alfredo Ferrari || Tel.: +41.22.767.6119 |
| C.E.R.N. || Fax.: +41.22.767.7555 |
| European Laboratory for Particle Physics|| |
| AB Division / ATB Group || e-mail: |
| 1211 Geneva 23 || Alfredo.Ferrari(a)cern.ch |
| Switzerland || Alfredo.Ferrari(a)mi.infn.it |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
15 years, 3 months
RAID5 gets a bad rap
by Philip Prindeville
I was going back over the archives and saw a lot of people complaining
about how slow RAID5 was, and did some quick research into this.
Yes, it's true that it can be slowed down if you're rewriting
fragmentary data in place, since this takes a read-modify-write operation.
But that's true of most filesystems.
If you're *not* a database weenie, and you're doing usual manly things
with your filesystem (like lots of compiles, for instance), you're
typically not going to be modifying files in place at all.
You're going to either be writing out new files, or else opening
existing files for writing, doing a truncate(fd, (off_t) 0) on them, and
then writing them out, etc.
Or else you're going to be opening lots and lots of files for reading...
Both of which RAID5 does as well as the next thing (which would be RAID0).
Why? Because if you're writing out files, you don't need to
read-modify-write, you can just write (and write the stripe parity data
at the same time).
"Ok, sure, you say, but what about the 16K (or whatever) stripe size
versus writing data out in smaller chunks?"
Yes? What about it? You might be writing blocks out via stdio
buffering in 4K chunks or whatever, but unless you're doing a sync()
after every single write (buffer flush), the filesystem (ext3 or
whatever) is free to accumulate consecutive blocks into handy (read:
more efficient) chunks (such as multiples of the stripe size) and write
them out all at once... again eliminating the need to do a
read-modify-write (since you only need to do a read-modify-write if
you're writing incomplete blocks).
So is it just the database-heads that are maligning RAID5, or are there
other performance issues I don't know about?
Because my empirical experience has always been that when writing large
files, RAID5 performs on par with RAID0.
Ditto with reading lots of files.
-Philip
15 years, 3 months
