PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu_mobile] 9.04 UNR is i386 not LPIA?



ShakataGaNai
April 23rd, 2009, 05:55 PM
I just wanted to check something before I go and reformat my netbook. The download (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook) page for Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.04 says "An Intel Atom processor" but the download img itself is "ubuntu-9.04-netbook-remix-i386.img". I realize that i386 is compatible with most everything, but is this file actually LPIA optimized?

Thanks

ekawahyu
April 23rd, 2009, 08:40 PM
I am downloading it and was about to ask the same thing. Anyway I can tell later after I install it in my netbook by looking at the power management performance. If it is i386, the battery performance will drop by one hour, so let see.

ShakataGaNai
April 23rd, 2009, 08:58 PM
The main reason I'm curious is for the performance kicks I've been running 9.04 UNR on my Eee 1000 since Alpha. Of course a 1.6ghz Atom is not amazingly fast. If I can get even a 5% performance boost by re-installing to LPIA I'll be totally thrilled.

Also, you can find out what you are running after install (or during live session) by running `uname -a` from the command prompt. It should return something like:


Linux happyfeet 2.6.28-11-generic #41-Ubuntu SMP Wed Apr 8 04:38:53 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux

(That is from my machine on UNR not LPIA)

snowpine
April 23rd, 2009, 11:27 PM
I have tested 8.04 lpia, 8.10 lpia, 8.10 i386, 9.04 lpia, and 9.04 i386 on my Atom-equipped Dell Mini 9. (I'm currently using 9.04 lpia just to be cool, but I must say the limited repositories are frustrating.) I have never seen anything even close to an hour difference in battery time; all five of those builds got approximately 4:00 battery life, give or take a few minutes. If there is a difference between lpia and i386, it is not visible to the naked eye. The improvement in speed and performance from 8.04 to 8.10 to 9.04, however, is significant. 9.04 should run great on your netbook regardless of whether you use the i386 or lpia kernel.

ekawahyu
April 24th, 2009, 12:33 AM
Uname -a gives generic type of kernel instead of lpia, anyway I will test the battery performance tomorrow and I will post the result.

According to the given note in Ubuntu release, my netbook Toshiba NB100 is not supported, but I seems to me that it works just fine.

@snowpine: this is the guide of installing jaunty on NB100, says the degraded battery performance. It was not the jaunty release, instead the rc build.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7105900&postcount=1

ekawahyu
April 24th, 2009, 09:23 AM
Hey guys, it is confirmed now that UNR 9.04 is i386 and not lpia. The first impression when I removed the power supply was:
1. UNR 8.04 lpia, gave me a notification of 4:15 battery estimation.
2. UNR 9.04 i386, gave me a notification of 2:50 battery estimation.

Not to mention that I tested it twice and the result was close to 2:50!

I will wait for the lpia architecture to come out before reinstalling the whole system. Now I am using dual boot.

Anyone knows how to create ISO from IMG file? I would like to install it to my older PC which is not able to boot from USB flash.

snowpine
April 24th, 2009, 01:51 PM
I will wait for the lpia architecture to come out before reinstalling the whole system. Now I am using dual boot.


9.04 lpia has been available for some time, I've been using it about 2 weeks. I just went over to the Ubuntu site to get a link for you, but the server is CRAWLING with all the people downloading 9.04. I know it is not on the main page, you have to click Ports or something like that...

Be aware that the repositories are smaller, so you won't have as many application choices as with i386.

Sorry to hear the i386 is not working so well on your NB100. :(

ps The reason they chose i386 over lpia for Ubuntu NBR is obvious to me... not all netbooks use Atom processors. Take the original Asus eee pc, for example, it uses the Celeron processor.

sandman652001
April 24th, 2009, 02:08 PM
II find it a bit of a cop out, it's a bit like saying since the original PC only supported the i286 instruction set the latest jaunty distribution was released as only i286, not considering that 99.9 of the other PC had by now passed on to x64.
lets be honest how many net-books do not use the Atom processor? 2....3?

the most important thing in a net-book is battery performance, do not get me wrong I love UNR, and I am also running the alternate version, but installing it is quite complicated for most people. What made UNR stand apart from windows on a netbook was battery performance and the launcher, we just got rid of one!

Let me add to that, one of the few netbooks that were sold out of the box with UNR like the Toshiba NB100 is not among the supported ones, when I bought mine Ubuntu was one of the deciding factors, I guess I should not have bothered

snowpine
April 24th, 2009, 02:16 PM
lets be honest how many netbooks do not use the Atom processor? 2....3?

Several million?
Imagine if Ubuntu Netbook Remix did not work on the original Asus eee PC that's been on the market for 2 years. That would just be embarrassing for Canonical. :)

sandman652001
April 24th, 2009, 02:25 PM
Several million?
Imagine if Ubuntu Netbook Remix did not work on the original Asus eee PC that's been on the market for 2 years. That would just be embarrassing for Canonical. :)

I obviously was talking about models,It would not have prevented them from installing it since the UNR interface is easily installable from synaptic, the same can not be said for the lpia version of ubuntu

P.s how many millions of Aspire one, MSI winds, etc do you think are around? and how many celeron eepc do you think will be sold in the future?

HankB
April 24th, 2009, 05:38 PM
Hey guys, it is confirmed now that UNR 9.04 is i386 and not lpia. The first impression when I removed the power supply was:
1. UNR 8.04 lpia, gave me a notification of 4:15 battery estimation.
2. UNR 9.04 i386, gave me a notification of 2:50 battery estimation.

Not to mention that I tested it twice and the result was close to 2:50!

Did you get a chance to actually test the battery life for lpia to see if it was longer? I thought the difference between the builds was performance due to different optimizations. I don't recall seeing anything about battery life.

When I googled for lpia (and probably Jaunty) I did find some indication that there was doubt that the lpia optimizations provided sufficient benefit to be worth the effort. Perhaps that is why it is not fully supported for Jaunty.

Does an lpia build involve anything besides different compiler optimization switches? I can see why building for 64 bit architectures is far from trivial, but the same is not clear (to me) for lpia.

-hank

snowpine
April 24th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Does an lpia build involve anything besides different compiler optimization switches? I can see why building for 64 bit architectures is far from trivial, but the same is not clear (to me) for lpia.

I have the 9.04 lpia kernel on my Dell Mini 9. I have been able to easily repackage i386 packages following these instructions: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=962835

I have also noticed that 9.04 lpia seems to run okay on a non-Atom computer (my Pentium 4 computer) so I suspect any differences are subtle.

HankB
April 24th, 2009, 05:56 PM
I have the 9.04 lpia kernel on my Dell Mini 9. I have been able to easily repackage i386 packages following these instructions: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=962835


What would I need to do to run an lpia kernel on my Eee PC (with Atom processor.) I presently have 9.04 UNR installed.

thanks,
hank

snowpine
April 24th, 2009, 06:02 PM
What would I need to do to run an lpia kernel on my Eee PC (with Atom processor.) I presently have 9.04 UNR installed.

thanks,
hank

You would need to start from scratch using the lpia alternate install CD/USB.

ShakataGaNai
April 25th, 2009, 04:05 AM
Well it is obvious that the 9.04 on the download page is no LPIA. Additionally I went digging around cdimage.ubuntu.com (Which is still terribly slow/broken).

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/jaunty/release/

Lists a LPIA Alternate image. Fine, but not UNR.


http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/netboot/jaunty/release/

Which is "the" list of Netbook releases has several platforms, but none LPIA.


I'm not sure what to make of all that. I'd think a LPIA UNR release would be _far_ more important than says AMD64. Yes, there are many i386 netbooks, but from what I've seen recently most of the new netbooks are LPIA. My only guess is that since UNR is new for 9.04, they haven't quite figured out what to do with it.

I've submitted a "Brainstorm" (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/19409/) for this.

snowpine
April 25th, 2009, 05:25 AM
Well it is obvious that the 9.04 on the download page is no LPIA. Additionally I went digging around cdimage.ubuntu.com (Which is still terribly slow/broken).

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/jaunty/release/

Lists a LPIA Alternate image. Fine, but not UNR.


http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/netboot/jaunty/release/

Which is "the" list of Netbook releases has several platforms, but none LPIA.


I'm not sure what to make of all that. I'd think a LPIA UNR release would be _far_ more important than says AMD64. Yes, there are many i386 netbooks, but from what I've seen recently most of the new netbooks are LPIA. My only guess is that since UNR is new for 9.04, they haven't quite figured out what to do with it.

I've submitted a "Brainstorm" (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/19409/) for this.

Easy solution: Download Ubuntu 9.04 lpia alternate CD. Select the option (I think it's F4 or possibly F6) to install a command line only (CLI) install. Once the install is complete, simply 'sudo apt-get install ubuntu-netbook-remix'.

Then, run some tests on it and compare vs i386 NBR. My hunch is that lpia offers few if any advantages over i386, and that is why Canonical devotes less effort to it.

Think about it for a second; if lpia is superior to i386, why is it not supported by Arch, Debian, Fedora, or any of the other major distros besides Ubuntu? The most telling evidence is that Moblin, a special distro developed by Intel for the Atom platform does not use the lpia kernel...

All that being said, I am running 9.04 lpia on my Mini 9 because it makes me feel special. As far as I know I am the only person in the world currently using CrunchBang 9.04 lpia. :)

sandman652001
April 25th, 2009, 07:35 AM
It's interesting to see the difference between netbooks with essentially the same hardware, in my case on my "unsupported:P" Toshiba NB100 the lpia version gives me about 50 minutes more battery life, I wander what makes the difference between models?

ShakataGaNai
April 25th, 2009, 08:13 AM
I also found a related bug filled.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/366025

coldmack
April 25th, 2009, 10:46 AM
Interesting. I want to move to 9.04 but if the battery life is lower then I dunno.

coldmack
April 28th, 2009, 12:24 AM
What would be the update here?

ShakataGaNai
April 28th, 2009, 12:26 AM
From the bug report response, I'm gonna guess that Canonical is _not_ going to release a UNR ISO for 9.04 LPIA. I've got my Eee 1000 for speed testing though. I'm going to try to find some simple bench marking software (if you have software suggestions, I'm open) to run against the machine now (currently i386) then reinstall using the LPIA alt and benchmark again.

coldmack
April 28th, 2009, 08:57 PM
So, is there a relase(latest one) version of Janty desktop for LPIA that isn't an MID version?

snowpine
April 28th, 2009, 09:04 PM
So, is there a relase(latest one) version of Janty desktop for LPIA that isn't an MID version?

Sure:
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/jaunty/release/

HankB
April 29th, 2009, 03:44 AM
Sure:
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/jaunty/release/
Very cool! Any idea how complete the lpia repositories are?

Is this a normal desktop installation? I'm surprised there is not an lpia UNR release.

I wonder if I should install that on my Eee PC 901 (Atom processor.) I suppose I could test it out on an SD card.

thanks,
hank

Edit: I have it installed on my Eee PC 901. Unfortunately it does not include a critical driver rt2680sta.ko for the wifi card. I'm willing to have a go at building this driver using the instructions at http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/build-linux-kernel-module-against-installed-kernel-source-tree.html (unless anyone can suggest better.) Unfortunately I'm stumped at finding the source file for this. I downloaded a package from http://www.ralinktech.com/ralink/Home/Support/Linux.html and it seems not to include this specific file or instructions to make it.

Any pointers to getting a working module for an RT2680 wifi card would be most welcome.

coldmack
April 29th, 2009, 11:02 PM
Why is the LPIA like 350mb smaller than the UNR I donwloaded a few days ago? Is the netbook interface really take that much space?

HankB
April 30th, 2009, 01:03 AM
Why is the LPIA like 350mb smaller than the UNR I donwloaded a few days ago? Is the netbook interface really take that much space?
I would guess that whoever built the lpia CD left stuff out. For example Tomboy installs by default on UNR but not lpia. When I asked to install it on lpia, apt needed to add a bunch of other stuff so I declined.

On to other differences I found. ;)

I've got UNR 9.04 installed on the 4GB drive on an Eee PC 901 (Atom N270, 2GB RAM) I have 9.04 lpia installed on a 4GB partition on an 8GB SDHC card. I tested both for battery drain with a web browser open and otherwise just sitting there. With a small sample, there was no significant difference. If I did enough testing, I suspect I might find that one is a couple percent better than the other. I would probably have a better test if I could put some reproducible load on the system.

That didn't really surprise me because I thought the bigger difference with lpia was performance - a system compiled with optimizations for the Atom. So I looked to see what benchmarks are available via the repositories. My thought was that I wanted something compiled with the lpia optimizations because I wanted to compare compiler and system throughput rather than CPU. So I gave gtkperf a shot. It is described as

GtkPerf is an application designed to test GTK+ performance.
The point is to create common testing platform to run predefined
GTK+ widgets (opening comboboxes, toggling buttons, scrolling text)
and this way define the speed of device/platform.

The difference between the standard build and lpia was significant. Running all tests for 100 counts, the standard install completes in about 27 seconds and the lpia in about 19. Tests were run immediately following boot and with nothing else running so I'm comfortable that the results reflect efficiency of the compiled code rather than some other factor. Sample output is listed below.

i386:

tkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Wed Apr 29 18:26:38 2009

GtkEntry - time: 0.13
GtkComboBox - time: 3.04
GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 1.93
GtkSpinButton - time: 0.53
GtkProgressBar - time: 1.20
GtkToggleButton - time: 0.61
GtkCheckButton - time: 0.44
GtkRadioButton - time: 0.92
GtkTextView - Add text - time: 1.80
GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 1.28
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 2.92
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 4.68
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 7.05
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 0.78
---
Total time: 27.33


lpia:

GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Wed Apr 29 18:21:00 2009

GtkEntry - time: 0.11
GtkComboBox - time: 3.08
GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 1.86
GtkSpinButton - time: 0.47
GtkProgressBar - time: 0.84
GtkToggleButton - time: 0.51
GtkCheckButton - time: 0.43
GtkRadioButton - time: 0.79
GtkTextView - Add text - time: 1.97
GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 0.72
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 1.78
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 3.04
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 2.69
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 0.36
---
Total time: 18.65


A comparison of the results seems to indicate most of the benefit is gained in the drawing portion of the benchmark.

Now I really want to figure out how to get a working driver for my wireless that will work with the lpia kernel!

coldmack
April 30th, 2009, 03:18 AM
So would it be safe to assume that the difference is marginal, other than the space saved with the LPIA? When I think about it I am indifferent to the netbook interface. Then again I am running the defualt MIE software so both would be a good step-up. I want to know if there is nothing left out of LPIA(i.e. drivers, software, and kernal stuff) compared to UNR(other than the UNR interface that is)...Thanks

HankB
April 30th, 2009, 04:07 AM
... I want to know if there is nothing left out of LPIA(i.e. drivers, software, and kernal stuff) compared to UNR(other than the UNR interface that is)...Thanks

lpia does not presently include the driver for the wireless card on my Eee PC 901 (rt2680sta module.) I have no idea what else, if anything, is left out.

ShakataGaNai
May 8th, 2009, 12:07 AM
I was also curious about the difference in speed between LPIA and i386 so I ran my own series of light benchmarks. Mine were done with standard process's on a CLI only install.

You can read the details at: Benchmarking: Ubuntu 9.04 i386 vs LPIA on Eee PC 1000 - Snowulf (http://snowulf.com/archives/605-Benchmarking-Ubuntu-9.04-i386-vs-LPIA-on-Eee-PC-1000.html)

The summary? The difference for most of the tests were statistically insignificant. The only test that there was a major difference in was building the complete 2.6.29.2 kernel. LPIA took about 30 minutes less than i386 or 17% faster (i386 = 196mn vs lpia=163mn). If you're a die hard performance junkie & willing to tinker alot, then LPIA is probably worth it. Otherwise I'd wait till maybe 9.10 when they produce a proper LPIA version.

Also, as an anecdote. Once I installed the Ubuntu Netbook Remix on the LPIA install, bootchart gave me a listed boot time as low as 15 seconds (16s run post (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootCharting?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=happyfeet-jaunty-20090430-1.png)). Of course... that is basically DIRECTLY after installing UNR, and still no wireless...

-SGN

HankB
May 8th, 2009, 02:30 AM
I was also curious about the difference in speed between LPIA and i386 so I ran my own series of light benchmarks. Mine were done with standard process's on a CLI only install.... Otherwise I'd wait till maybe 9.10 when they produce a proper LPIA version.

Thanks for taking the time to run those. That leaves me curious about the performance difference I saw in video performance. There has been much discussion of performance of the drivers for the Intel chip sets and I suspect that there were some differences in settings between my lpia and i386 install.

-hank

satbunny
June 18th, 2009, 10:04 PM
I wanted 9.04 since mobile broadband is better supported. I wasn't sure so I dual booted 8.04 Dellbuntu lpia with the 9.03 x86 UNR install.

Estimated battery life is lower but I have a 6 cell battery and frankly it's enough.

So what I shall do for a while is dual boot, with a common data partition, and use 8.04lpia when I need the battery life and 9.04 when I don't. So far I think 9.04 is beating 8.04 and I hated the limited lpia repositories..