- Posts: 596
- Thank you received: 0
Optiplex 755
3 years 7 months ago #266314
by zz912
Replied by zz912 on topic Optiplex 755
I am still testing 2ms thread.
Is 8 packet-error without "Latency error message" OK?
I have never followed this Hal Pin before. There was no reason.
Is 8 packet-error without "Latency error message" OK?
Attachment not found
I have never followed this Hal Pin before. There was no reason.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 7 months ago #266315
by PCW
Replied by PCW on topic Optiplex 755
That's not not great, do you still have IRQ coalescing and AMT disabled?
This should always be done.
You might do better on that hardware with another kernel
This should always be done.
You might do better on that hardware with another kernel
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 7 months ago #266318
by zz912
Replied by zz912 on topic Optiplex 755
I did not enabled IRQ or AMT.
Now I am trying change Kernel.
I will continue on Monday
Now I am trying change Kernel.
Code:
sudo apt install linux-headers-4.19.0-19-rt-amd64 linux-image-4.19.0-19-rt-amd64 linux-image-4.19.0-19-rt-amd64-dbg
sudo grub-customizer
I will continue on Monday
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 7 months ago #266396
by zz912
Replied by zz912 on topic Optiplex 755
Optiplex 7010
I tested my 7i96 and it had latency problem too. So I downgraded kernel, but this didnt help too.
It is weird. This computer with this Mesa card didnt have problems in past.
I guess something got updated and now it's messing up communication with Mesa.
I tested my 7i96 and it had latency problem too. So I downgraded kernel, but this didnt help too.
Attachment not found
It is weird. This computer with this Mesa card didnt have problems in past.
I guess something got updated and now it's messing up communication with Mesa.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 7 months ago #266418
by PCW
Replied by PCW on topic Optiplex 755
Could also be a hardware failure of some kind
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 7 months ago #266742
by JT
I can't figure out how you got 2333333 from 2333 MHz...
100(tmax/CPU_Speed*Servo_period)
So if tmax is 174729 and CPU speed is 2333 MHz and servo period is 1000000us what is the formula to arrive at 75%?
JT
Replied by JT on topic Optiplex 755
I think there is a bug in mesact
The servo thread tmax should show 75%
(100*1747291/2333333)
I can't figure out how you got 2333333 from 2333 MHz...
100(tmax/CPU_Speed*Servo_period)
So if tmax is 174729 and CPU speed is 2333 MHz and servo period is 1000000us what is the formula to arrive at 75%?
JT
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 7 months ago #266753
by PCW
Replied by PCW on topic Optiplex 755
2333333 is the number of CPU clocks per servo period
(2333333333*.001)
1747291 is the number of CPU clocks in the tmax value
1747291/2333333 = 0.748839107
(2333333333*.001)
1747291 is the number of CPU clocks in the tmax value
1747291/2333333 = 0.748839107
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 5 months ago #271613
by zz912
Replied by zz912 on topic Optiplex 755
Hello,
I made test MesaCT with LCNC branche 2.9:
Then I made same test with LCNC branche busywait7:
It can be seen that branche busywait7 is better than branche 2.9. I was wondering if the busywait7 branch will ever be merged into the 2.9 branch?
I made test MesaCT with LCNC branche 2.9:
Attachment not found
Then I made same test with LCNC branche busywait7:
Attachment not found
It can be seen that branche busywait7 is better than branche 2.9. I was wondering if the busywait7 branch will ever be merged into the 2.9 branch?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 5 months ago #271622
by PCW
Replied by PCW on topic Optiplex 755
Note that the latest available RT kernel (6.3.1-rt23)
seems better for network latency than earlier kernels.
I have tested it for about a week on 3 systems and have had no
packet errors at 1 KHz and now have it running at 2 KHz on one of
my better (latency wise) systems.
seems better for network latency than earlier kernels.
I have tested it for about a week on 3 systems and have had no
packet errors at 1 KHz and now have it running at 2 KHz on one of
my better (latency wise) systems.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.069 seconds
