Hello OlafI will be glad to wipe a 100gig partition clean and redo any tests. I
have been a gnome biggot for many years, in fact almost as long as I have been
using Fedora Linux.
All the following extensions are tested with btrfs. xfs, ext4 and lvm. Are
four extensions are installed within the .local environment.1) Gnome Radio
F27 Gnome3.26, with /home on btrfs -- Had to remove the extension -- with it,
no kbd, monitor, mouse. Needed a poweron reset.
2) TaskBar by zpydr. Would lock up Gnome, but I could get in via virtual
terminal and do a cleanup.
3) gnomenu by Panacier (random fail after installation/use )
4) Activities Configurator by nls1729 (random fail after installation/
hiccup)
Only btrfs caused problems with these extensions and caused gnome-shell
crashes.
If you want to test, consider getting a copy of Fedora 27 beta, and do a btrfs
installation. Add an extras partition for ext4 or xfs (Alternate /home)With
/etc/fstab and /home on btrfs please verify results.With /etc/fstab and /home
on alternate partition please verify results.
Below my signature is a note I sent to Awilliam Regards
Leslie
Leslie Satenstein
Montréal Québec, Canada
A individual email to Awilliam
Good morning from Montreal Awilliam
I am retired after 55 years as system architect in ERP, banking, capacity
planning, and do hobby C programming and I also like to keep myself active. I
do enjoy doing some beta testing and "technical writing/editing".
My recent tests that prompted my email has its origins with the testing of
Fedora 27 betas and Gnome 3.26 I have been performing regular re-installs and
retests.
My test method is to wipe clean a 100gig partition and perform an installation.
When I note repeated problems with a Fedora software, I raise a bugzilla
report. So, when I began to have problems with btrfs and Gnome3.26, I redid
the installation onto several other disk/partitions. I then redid the
installations using ext4, lvm or xfs and additional btrfs installations.
Generally, I install an extension and do invoke it's settings options. This is
what I noted. "As long as there is no extension setup via settings to do,
there is generally no lockup". I regularly test a Fedora beta or Fedora
nightly install for two to three days at a time before wiping it clean and
reinstalling a more recent version.
I have been trying to debug the extensions listed below by reading the code.
With no extensions enabled, I generally experience zero problems at logon or
the rare random one that requires root's killall -u userid.
If I enable Fedora delivered extensions, there is also usually no problem
(btrfs, ext4, xfs, lvm). I am not sure if that holds true if I intentionally,
under btrfs,recompile the schemas. I would, if you want me to set up a test.
Re testing, I have 5 terrabyte disks and ample partitions available. I do not
mix setups. This is what I tend to have.
sda=lvm, G3.26, 750gigs spare Fedora 27 beta
sdb data disk -- xfce F26 distribution thereon
sdc #1 G3.26 btrfs/btrfs (/ and /home), Fedora27 beta
sdc#2 G3.26 btrfs/xfs (/ and /home with xfs) Fedora27 beta
sdd G3.24 btrfs/btrfs (/ and /home) no problems Fedora 26
sde G3.24 ext4/ext4 (/ and /home) no problems Fedora 26
Note: Testing experience is causing me to make my conjecture about these
added extensions.
All the following extensions are tested with btrfs. xfs, ext4 and lvm. Are
four extensions are installed within the .local environment.1) Gnome Radio
F27 Gnome3.26, with /home on btrfs -- Had to remove the extension -- with it,
no kbd, monitor, mouse. Needed a poweron reset.
2) TaskBar by zpydr. Would lock up Gnome, but I could get in via virtual
terminal and do a cleanup.
3) gnomenu by Panacier (random installation/use )
4) Activities Configurator by nls1729 (random hiccup)
Are above extensions are installed within the .local/share environment.
What I have done to confirm for myself is: Without re-installing a full btrfs
installed system, move the /home to a partition formatted as ext4 and voila,
all the faulty extensions work. Via a two line change in /etc/fstab, I can
toggle between the btrfs partition and the ext4 other.
And the /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions appear to suffer likewise.
The worst is do the following: glib-compile /usr/share/glib2.0/schema while
with btrfs as the file system.I regret I failed to do a diff with before/after
of the compiled /usr/share/glib2.0/schema/.
With Fedora 26, gnome 3.24 btrfs, ext4, xfs, lvm, no matter the interface, all
work with 3.24.
One problem I am experiencing with Fedora 27 beta is the crash at login time
with gnome-shell going into a loop with 99.5% cpu. Many times I power-off,
restart, relog and experience a good logon and redo a crash report. It seems
often to require two logon attempts to be successful.
How do I trace execution? I would like to do the debugging.
Shortly I will be upgrading to Fedora 27, I will not be installing my own long
term version with btrfs.
For what it is worth. SUSE linux uses btrfs for / but xfs for /home. I think
that "that is the silent way they are not seeing extension crashes".
By the way, if I am wrong, for what ever justified reason, then I do apologize
for causing all this uproar. I am not intending to be a sxxx disturber.
From: Olaf Leidinger <ol...@mescharet.de>
To: gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 5:18 AM
Subject: btrfs, gnome-shell 3.26 and extensions / was: Re: Fw: Gnome extensions
Hey Leslie,
what extensions are you using? I just installed gnome-shell-3.26 from Arch
Linux's testing repos and it's working fine for me using btrfs. gnome-shell is
hardly visible via 'top'.
Kind regards,
Olaf
Am 06.10.2017 um 03:46 schrieb Leslie S Satenstein via gnome-shell-list:
Do not (as 5 October) use Gnome with btrfs. You can experience gnome-shell
looping with 99% cpu busy, schemas not being adhered to, and problems because
btrfs uses copy-on-write. I have 5 copies of Gnome 3.26 with ext4, brtfs
fully, btrrs with xfs for /home and more. I can substantiate the btrfs
problem. Like any scientific experiment, you can duplicate my findings.
Gnome is safe with a non "copy on write" file system. Regards
Leslie
Leslie Satenstein
Montréal Québec, Canada
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Leslie S Satenstein via gnome-shell-list <gnome-shell-list@gnome.org>
To: Florian Müllner <fmuell...@gnome.org>; Gnome-shell-list
<gnome-shell-list@gnome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:16 PM
Subject: Gnome extensions
Hi Florian
I'm using a few of your Gnome extensions. I thank you for providing them to
the community.
I do have a question for you regarding the gnome-shell.
I have extensions (several that include yours), where the installation (doing
the settings) onto a btrfs file system crashes the shell, or causes the shell
to go into a 99.9% cpu loop. If I install these extensions onto a non btrfs
system, eg, ext4, lvm, xfs , the installation and extension setup works
flawlessly.
I use most of your extensions, that come globally with Fedora Linux
(currently using the Fedora beta 1.5, the pending go-live beta). I am using it
fully with btrfs. I can crash the shell with one or two extensions, only if
the underlying file system is btrfs
As the gnome-shell gets maintenance updates, I am see fewer and fewer
crashes, but not with btrfs. The crashes only occur during parameter setup. It
seems that the gnome-shell does not wrongly read the compiled schema or ignores
the compiled schema. Have you stress tested Gnome-shell under btrfs?
My preferred third party extension that works perfectly with ext4 and xfs is
TaskBar by Zpydr. I am walking through the source code and with my level of JS
knowledge, find no errors. Setting TaskBar up onto a btrfs system crashes the
shell, but on logging in after a crash, I see settings outside of the schema
settings. After a few crashes, when the settings are what I wanted, every
extension works as anticipated. By the way, I am not the author of this
extension. The author appears to have abandoned his offering. What is his
extension and one or two others exercising that cause this grief.
I am wondering if recompiling the schemas while under btrfs would make a
difference. I will give it a try.
_______________________________________________
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
