Upgrade from 1.5.7 to 1.5.8 issues

[george1421]

@Chris-Whiteley If you are testing the bzImage from 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 on different days, could you test the bzImage from 1.5.8 now? I’m just trying to rule out other variables, because what you’ve told us, should not be. I’m not saying it can’t happen, only its a bit strange in the same series (4.19.x)

[Chris Whiteley]

@george1421 I am testing it now. I found the 1.5.8 binaries.

[george1421]

@Chris-Whiteley That was the 4.19.101 version.

But maybe now I’m confused. I’m trying to build a truth table and I thought we zeroed in on something

1.5.8:bzImage 4.19.101 1.5.8:init.xz == Slow (partclone 0.3.13)
1.5.8:bzImage 4.19.101 1.5.7:init.xz == Slow (partclone 0.3.13)
1.5.7:bzImage 4.19.65 1.5.7:init.xz == Fast (partclone 0.2.89)
1.5.8:bzImage 4.19.101 1.5.7:init.xz == ?? (partclone 0.2.89)

[Chris Whiteley]

@george1421 This is correct so far. This last test proved to be faster this time…hmmm…This has also been the most stable as far as not going from ridiculous speeds down to what it actually should be. Now it starts where it normally rests at.

[george1421]

@Chris-Whiteley said in Upgrade from 1.5.7 to 1.5.8 issues:

This last test proved to be faster this time

Just as fast, or faster than last time?

Also this is why I wanted you to test the same day with the same set of circumstances. Just in case there was something in network land that was different than last week.

[Chris Whiteley]

@george1421 Just as fast as when I had 1.5.7 and it was working. Both tests from normal SSD and NVMe worked as I think they should. How do I now get an output of what versions of things I have so that you guys can figure out what you need to?

[george1421]

@Chris-Whiteley well for bzImage that’s easy file bzImage will tell you the current version of bzImage.

For init.xz its not as easy but not hard either. If we use md5sum utility we can get the fingerprint of init.xz file.

This is for 1.5.7

md5sum init.xz
913326f3317b577be3cb65a7bf332afb  init.xz

If you have the chance, since something is different, can you test with the init.xz from 1.5.8? Its best to do all in one day if possible.

[Chris Whiteley]

@george1421

bzimage - 4.19.101
init.xz - 9133326

[Chris Whiteley]

@george1421 just tested with the 1.5.8 init.xz and got the slowness again

[george1421]

@Chris-Whiteley said in Upgrade from 1.5.7 to 1.5.8 issues:

just tested with the 1.5.8 init.xz and got the slowness again

Ok so what the developers (or myself) need to do is pluck out partclone from the 1.5.8 inits and install it in the 1.5.7 inits. This will point exactly to partclone.

The issue with 1.5.8 (not a problem just many things change) is that the system used to create the virtual hard drive (init.xz) was upgraded, this also upgraded a number of support modules inside the init.xz. So on the surface we don’t know if the latest version of gzip is doing this or partclone. At least in my head.

[Chris Whiteley]

@george1421 Thanks for the update! Let me know what you guys find and if I can be of anymore help.

[george1421]

@Chris-Whiteley For now you have a path using the 1.5.7 inits. I might have time later tonight to unpack and repack the inits to copy over partclone. Once that is done we’ll have you test with the 1.5.7 inits with the patched in 0.3.13 partclone. Testing that will tell us about the next steps.

Thank you for your help til now to give us a clear picture of where the problem isn’t.

[Sebastian Roth]

@Chris-Whiteley @george1421 I really like George’s truth table as it’s the best way to figure out those kind of things. To have it always on top I updated George’s information and put it into a table in the initial post. Let’s try to keep it updated there.

[Sebastian Roth]

@Chris-Whiteley @george1421 Just wanna keep this topic up on the screen…

[Sebastian Roth]

@Chris-Whiteley @george1421 ping pong

[Chris Whiteley]

@Sebastian-Roth Has this been hard to replicate? Or is it just that it has been hard to find time to do this? Thanks!

[Sebastian Roth]

@Chris-Whiteley Good you are asking. I was still under the impression that we need more testing to fill the truth table I added to your initial post. So I haven’t been working on this lately. Sorry, should have been more clear in my last messages.

[Chris Whiteley]

@Sebastian-Roth I thought we tested and then @george1421 was going to look at some of the behind the scenes things and then would get back to me? If I am wrong and I needed to do something else, please let me know!

[george1421]

@Sebastian-Roth I think I dropped the ball on this one. My company is considered essential so I’m still working through this mess.

I think where I was at was taking the partclone bits from 1.5.7 inits and to overwrite the partclone bits in the 1.5.8 inits. This will give us an idea if its 0.2.89 code or something else in teh 1.5.8 inits like zstd, gzip, something else.

[Sebastian Roth]

@Chris-Whiteley @george1421 Thanks for the quick update. I just added two lines to the truth table. Chris, can you please test those two and report back? One of them you did a test on already but as this is crucial I may ask you to do it again as we get this going again.