[06:46] <amitk> Sarvatt: you maintain the packages in xorg-edgers?
[16:09] <jcapik> Hello guys.
[16:09] <jcapik> May I ask for help?
[16:09] <jcapik> I'm experiencing a strange harddrive performance issue
[16:10] <jcapik> The second harddrive has a poor performance with ubuntu kernels
[16:10] <jcapik> I've tested the same with mageia kernels and it works correctly
[16:11] <jcapik> hdparm says both drives are running under udma5 mode
[16:11] <bjf> jcapik, please file a bug
[16:11] <jcapik> bjf: filling bugs is painful
[16:11] <jcapik> bjf: I tried to create one for pulseaudio and it was marked as incomplete without any reaction
[16:12] <jcapik> bjf: that's why I search for help here
[16:12] <bjf> jcapik, usually, if a bug is marked incomplete it is because someone has asked you for more information and is waiting for you to provide it
[16:12] <jcapik> bjf: not in my case
[16:13] <jcapik> bjf: it was marked incomplete without any reaction
[16:13] <bjf> jcapik, bug # ?
[16:14] <jcapik> bjf: 1176528
[16:15] <bjf> bug 1176528
[16:15] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1176528 in pulseaudio (Ubuntu) "Sound distorted with pulseaudio when the player volume gets over 97% (tested with audacious, vlc and mplayer)" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1176528
[16:16] <bjf> jcapik, i've changed it back to "New" and added a comment
[16:17] <bjf> jcapik, regarding your HD issue, i really do want a bug filed
[16:18] <jcapik> bjf: ok ... the problem is, that we're running Mint ... and the reporting tools do not work saying "it's 3rd party" bullshits
[16:19] <jcapik> bjf: in that case i'm unsure how to correctly report bugs against ubuntu components
[16:19] <bjf> jcapik, have you talked to the mint folks about your issue and how to file bugs against mint?
[16:19] <jcapik> bjf: the howto is incomplete
[16:20] <jcapik> bjf: yup .... they say .... if the component is taken from ubuntu, report the issue on the ubuntu BTS
[16:20] <jcapik> bjf: the components are taken unchanged 
[16:20] <jcapik> bjf: and I'm pretty sure the issue is present even when running ubuntu
[16:21] <bjf> jcapik, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+filebug
[16:22] <jcapik> bjf: ok .... I'm gonna create one
[16:38] <ohsix> which parts do the reporting tools say are third party?
[16:39] <jcapik> bjf: bug 1176993
[16:39] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1176993 in linux (Ubuntu) "Very poor performance of the 2nd UATA harddrive (works well with Mageia2 kernel)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1176993
[16:39] <jcapik> bjf: is it sufficient?
[16:39] <bjf> looking
[16:40] <ohsix> if you're going to test random kernels, at least the upstream one can be verified :p
[16:40] <bjf> jcapik, a bot will hit the bug and ask for additional information. please follow it's directions
[16:40] <jcapik> bjf: ok ... thx
[16:45] <jcapik> ohsix: sorry .... i missed youre response
[16:45] <jcapik> ohsix: i believe it was the ubuntu-bug tool
[16:46] <jcapik> ohsix: i thought it could run correctly for ubuntu packages, but apparently not ...
[16:48] <ohsix> jcapik: but what package is it saying is invalid?
[16:48] <jcapik> ohsix: pulseaudio
[16:49] <jcapik> ohsix: but I've tested few more
[16:49] <jcapik> ohsix: the same result
[16:49] <jcapik> ohsix: maybe mint guys modified the reporting tools
[16:49] <jcapik> ohsix: to allow only mint packages to be reported
[16:50] <ohsix> they probably signed everything with a different key, and rebuilt stuff
[16:50] <jcapik> ohsix: nope
[16:50] <jcapik> ohsix: they don't rebuild
[16:50] <jcapik> ohsix: the distribution could be called mintubuntu :D
[16:50] <jcapik> ohsix: the packages are really taken unchanged
[16:50] <jcapik> ohsix: it's like that because of the repository priorities
[16:51] <jcapik> ohsix: the mint repository has a higher priority, than ubuntu ones
[16:51] <jcapik> ohsix: so ... if the package is present in the mint repo, it's taken from there ... otherwise it's taken from Ubuntu
[16:51] <ohsix> post the output of dpkg -s pulseaudio to a pastebin
[16:53] <jcapik> ohsix: http://pastebin.com/WnYc6PMN
[16:57] <ohsix> and what version of ubuntu does mint consider itself?
[16:58] <jcapik> ohsix: quantal
[16:58] <jcapik> ohsix: according to the apt sources
[16:59] <jcapik> mc
[16:59] <jcapik> ohsix: linuxmint priority 700, ubuntu priority 500
[17:01] <jcapik> ohsix: lsb_release -rd returns the following
[17:01] <jcapik> Description:    Linux Mint 14 Nadia
[17:01] <jcapik> Release:        14
[17:05] <ohsix> well, i checked what i thought may matter, the reporting tools are doing some checking that i don't know about, you'd have to look into it if you want to bother; i wouldn't accept it as an answer from people (report to ubuntu BTS and the like) until they can give you a solid reason why the tools don't work
[17:05] <ohsix> it makes a lot of extra work for everyone to do it that way
[17:07] <jcapik> ohsix: I'm quite new into Mint and you know ... I'm still trying to find the best way of doing things .... one of them is bug reporting
[17:09] <ohsix> if you want kernels to test with, http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/ but it's probably not useful to speculate that you may, just that using a mageia one is extra annoying :p
[17:09] <jcapik> ohsix: I've tested Mageia2 kernels .... they work correctly
[17:09] <jcapik> ohsix: ant they're nearly upstream
[17:09] <jcapik> and
[17:09] <ohsix> think about what that means as information for a person trying to solve the bug though
[17:10] <jcapik> ohsix: ok :D
[17:10] <ohsix> it's less valuable, it might even be bad unless they do some work to verify what the mageia kernels are
[17:10] <jcapik> ohsix: I'm gonna test the ones from that link
[17:11] <jcapik> ohsix: which one do you recommend ?
[17:11] <jcapik> ohsix: there's plenty of kernels
[17:12] <jcapik> ohsix: don't know which one to start with :D
[17:12] <jcapik> ohsix: v3.5.7.11-quantal ?
[17:12] <ohsix> it depends on what you're testing, there are ones in daily/ that are very new, and there are some quantal ones that are new but not built as often
[17:13] <jcapik> ohsix: the problem is .... I'm connected remotely right now
[17:13] <jcapik> ohsix: if I kill the system with unbootable kernel, then somebody would have to go there and fix that
[17:14] <jcapik> ohsix: f..k that ... let's try :D
[17:14] <ohsix> jcapik: eeg, well there are things to check first
[17:14] <ohsix> jcapik: like if aspm is on and working
[17:15] <jcapik> ohsix: why ASPM ?
[17:16] <ohsix> because it could explain the performance difference, there are a few sata bits and bobs that could, check dmesg for the working / nonworking kernel
[17:16] <jcapik> ohsix: why the first harddrive runs well?
[17:16] <ohsix> the brands are different :]
[17:17] <jcapik> ohsix: yup they are .... 
[17:17] <jcapik> ohsix: but the parameters seems the same
[17:17] <ohsix> it's conceivable if they were both the same model, or you had another one of the seagates in there they would act the same, if they did it would be a more clear indicator
[17:17] <ohsix> the kernel can make a difference, but it will be on terms of turning things like aspm on or off in different versions and for different reasons
[17:18] <jcapik> ohsix: stupid me .... i forgot to check dmesg
[17:18] <jcapik> ohsix: it seems the reason is there
[17:18] <jcapik> [    2.126156] ata2.00: simplex DMA is claimed by other device, disabling DMA
[17:18] <jcapik> [    2.192790] ata2.00: configured for PIO4
[17:19] <ohsix> nice
[17:19] <ohsix> i dunno what simplex dma is, it might be something specific to that broadcom controller
[17:22] <jcapik> ohsix: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/672426
[17:22] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 672426 in linux (Ubuntu) "module pata_serverworks: [ 1.376745] ata2.00: simplex DMA is claimed by other device, disabling DMA, HDD is in PIO Mode" [Undecided,Expired]
[17:22] <jcapik> ohsix: it's Dell PowerEdge 600SC in our case
[17:22] <ohsix> it's weird that hdparm still showed it in udma5
[17:22] <jcapik> ohsix: the bug expired for no activity
[17:22] <jcapik> ohsix: yup 
[17:23] <jcapik> ohsix: that's it
[17:23] <jcapik> ohsix: I tried to change the Xfer mode, but it resulted in error
[17:40] <jcapik> ohsix: it seems the mainline kernel didn't boot
[17:41] <ohsix> :< i thought you stopped when you found out what was going on
[17:46] <jcapik> ohsix: after a short phone call, the system is up and running again
[17:46] <jcapik> ohsix: tested with the mainline kernel .... the same result