LCDProc 0.5.4-dev

stephenw10

Yes I agree two distinct situations.
The first should have been solved by your recent update, thanks!
Though as you say LCDd can support multiple clients. Interesting though that this doesn't arise with any other driver even though it should not happen.

Steve

jpsb

@jpsb:

@mdima:

@jpsb:

I just use the HD44780 in the driver list, and by connecting the display, the system log shows "LCD2USB device found"
The display is a little slow, and works best by refresh frequency on 5 or 10 sec.

Hi JPSB,
mmhhh… seems strange... how many screens you have active? Did you have the same problem also with the previous version?

Thanks,
Michele

Hi Michele

Yes I had the same problem with last version.
I only have "Interface Traffic" and "Load" running.
But the new version with options to change contrast, etc. makes the display is running perfectly.
I have not had any luck getting the new driver "hd44780 Fast" to run.
But as I said, it runs perfectly with the other changes.
So once again, many thanks for a fantastic job.

See my youtube video of the display:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moL-x1HpPew&feature=autoplay&list=ULmoL-x1HpPew&lf=mfu_in_order&playnext=46

Hi I having problem with the display running on the alix2d13 hardware.
After about 12 hours, the CPU load runs at 100%, and Pfsense freezer.
I have tried with multiple modules loaded but it makes no difference.

PFSense 2.0.1
alix2d13
4Gb CF-card
MiniPCI vpn1411 encryption accelerator
U204FB-A1 20x4 Display

mdima

What if we roll back to 0.5.4 (now the package works with 0.5.5)??

stephenw10

I've been testing using 0.54 versions of LCDd and sdeclcd.so and there is no difference. As I type this I'm unable to access my box.
The fact that jpsb is experiencing a similar problem with a different driver is alarming.

I haven't tried going back to pfSense 2.0 yet. :-\

Still testing…

Steve

mdima

Steve,
can you try to use the LCDproc package (I mean not the "-dev" package) and see if the problem occurs?

I guess with the "LCDproc" package you didn't have any problem or you were not running it?

Thanks,
Michele

marcelloc

I don't know if it can help, but some time ago I had a endless startup processes from mailscanner that exausted machine resources every boot.

I noted that at bootup, mailscanner startup was called several times.

May be there is something related with multiple lcdproc scripts/prccess opened.

mdima

@marcelloc:

I don't know if it can help, but some time ago I had a endless startup processes from mailscanner that exausted machine resources every boot.
I noted that at bootup, mailscanner startup was called several times.
May be there is something related with multiple lcdproc scripts/prccess opened.

Thanks Marcello, but for what I understood it is the only LCDd process that after a certain amount of time eats all the resources…

stephenw10

I never ran the original LCdproc package (except while trying to develop my own package and then only for a few hours) because it never included the sdeclcd driver.
Before you added the driver to the LCDproc-dev package all firebox users were running a manual installation that consisted of:
LCDd 0.53
lcdproc client with manual command line options for screens.
The old sdeclcd driver.
A simple startup script that ran the server and client once from /usr/local/etc/rc.d

I never saw this crash out on any box. It was distributed as a tarball with an install script. Here.

I never tested this with pfSense 2.0.1.

Steve

fmertz

@jpsb:

Hi I having problem with the display running on the alix2d13 hardware.
U204FB-A1 20x4 Display

What is the driver for this LCD?

tix

@stephenw10:

Before you added the driver to the LCDproc-dev package all firebox users were running a manual installation that consisted of:
LCDd 0.53
lcdproc client with manual command line options for screens.
The old sdeclcd driver.
A simple startup script that ran the server and client once from /usr/local/etc/rc.d

Can I install the old driver and run the LCDproc-dev scripts against it? Would it work this way? Or maybe replace LCDd instead?

I thinking is the problem is with either the driver or LCDd not the client scripts. I've never seen an issue with the client, but everytime the display has stopped working for me, the LCDd process was at 100%.

stephenw10

Just what I'm going to try after work.
You will need both LCDd and sdeclcd.so from the tarball. I've never tried running it since the 2.0.1 update but I see no reason why anything should have changed.

Steve

Edit: No compatibility issues, testing now.

fmertz

@stephenw10:

I've been testing using 0.54 versions of LCDd and sdeclcd.so and there is no difference.

New test driver:

https://github.com/downloads/fmertz/sdeclcd/sdeclcd.so

I removed the call to the process scheduler. Give it a try…

mdima

Steve,
I watched the LCDd.conf in the tarball and I found no one difference that could cause this… BUT in the same time probably I had the same issue on my secondary machine.
The machine is running the screens: Uptime, Load, States, Mbuf and Interface Traffic (WAN).

Can you please select only the Interface traffic (WAN) and tell me if it hangs again? So we exclude one screen...

Thanks,
Michele

stephenw10

@fmertz:

I removed the call to the process scheduler. Give it a try…

Ah, that sounds interesting.

@mdima:

Can you please select only the Interface traffic (WAN) and tell me if it hangs again? So we exclude one

You want me to run only the Interface Traffic screen? Currently I'm running Uptime and Time.

Too many tests, not enough boxes! :P

Steve

mdima

hehe! sorry buddy, if some watchguard representative sends me a couple of Fireboxes I can test them also! :D

tix

@fmertz:

New test driver:

https://github.com/downloads/fmertz/sdeclcd/sdeclcd.so

I removed the call to the process scheduler. Give it a try…

Downloaded this driver and going to try it. Left everything else unchanged from the .9 dev package and will see if the driver alone makes any difference in the morning. If the driver doesn't help, I will restore the original .9 driver and change to LCDd 0.53 in stephenw10's manual package. Seems a methodical approach should help me narrow this down.

I haven't had any resource issues other than LCDd locking CPU to 100% until I kill it. Even in my box with only 256M, I still have over 128M free and no swap in use. In fact, today it ran for 8 hours at 100% while I was at work and continued to route and firewall properly.


load averages: 10.06,  9.81,  9.30
101 processes: 13 running, 76 sleeping, 12 waiting
CPU: 20.4% user,  0.0% nice, 78.6% system,  1.0% interrupt,  0.0% idle
Mem: 62M Active, 12M Inact, 35M Wired, 25M Buf, 125M Free
Swap: 512M Total, 512M Free

  PID USERNAME PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU COMMAND
12019 nobody    74  r30  3368K  1496K RUN    528:54 100.00% LCDd

Lastly math was off in a previous post, my failures all seem to start at around 9 hours (+/- 1 hour) of uptime (not 16 as previously reported).

I will report status in the morning and with any luck the new driver resolves this.

stephenw10

I'm trying to run stuff for at least 24hrs so I can be relatively sure there's no problem / is a problem.
For reference I'm now coming up to 21hrs running LCDd 0.53 with the old driver, no problems.


last pid: 21474;  load averages:  1.65,  1.37,  1.43                                up 10+14:12:56  14:02:28
107 processes: 5 running, 85 sleeping, 1 zombie, 16 waiting
CPU: 46.3% user,  0.0% nice, 53.4% system,  0.4% interrupt,  0.0% idle
Mem: 58M Active, 18M Inact, 59M Wired, 152K Cache, 59M Buf, 350M Free
Swap:

  PID USERNAME PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU COMMAND
   10 root     171 ki31     0K     8K RUN    168.6H 33.98% idle
31442 root      76    0 43356K 14908K RUN      0:14  3.96% php
30124 root      76    0 43356K 15060K accept   0:27  2.98% php
55054 root      76    0 43356K 15060K ppwait   0:27  2.98% php
51320 root      76    0 43356K 14908K accept   0:16  2.98% php
   11 root     -32    -     0K   128K WAIT    26:28  0.00% {swi4: clock}
   11 root     -68    -     0K   128K WAIT    19:58  0.00% {irq18: em0 ath0+}
63361 nobody    44    0  3364K  1460K RUN     10:14  0.00% LCDd

Important thing here is ~10minutes CPU time in 21hours.

Steve

Edit: Actually that looked like too much CPU time (but not much) something odd happened at 4.24am which mat have used some cycles:


Jan 26 04:24:34 	LCDd: Connect from host 127.0.0.1:17658 on socket 11
Jan 26 04:24:32 	php: lcdproc: Connection to LCDd process lost ()
Jan 26 04:24:24 	LCDd: sock_send: socket write error
Jan 26 04:24:24 	LCDd: sock_send: socket write error
Jan 26 04:24:24 	LCDd: sock_send: socket write error
Jan 26 04:24:24 	LCDd: Client on socket 11 disconnected
Jan 26 04:24:24 	LCDd: error: huh? Too much data received... quiet down!

It doesn't seem to have effected it though. Recovered from said event without issue.

stephenw10

Ok, so 24 hours is up running 0.53 LCDd and the old sdec driver and some interesting results are in!
First off I have had no problem accessing the box during that time and the lcdclient and LCDd processes have run solidly with only one instance of each.

Much more interstingly is that twice during the 24hr period the logs show the error in the post above 'too much data received'. It is clear that the process recovers and carries on with seemingly no other effects however it's also clear that during that 'event' the LCDd process uses far more CPU cycles.
After 24hrs:


 PID USERNAME PRI NICE   SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU COMMAND
   10 root     171 ki31     0K     8K RUN    171.4H 98.00% idle
   11 root     -32    -     0K   128K WAIT    26:54  0.00% {swi4: clock}
63361 nobody    44    0  3364K  1460K nanslp  25:56  0.00% LCDd

My original estimate was that it should consume around 2minutes in 24hrs.

So is it possible that either the newer driver or LCDd process is unable to recover from the 'too much data received' event?

One other thing I noted is that the LCDd process is run with nice level 0 which doesn't seem right.

Steve

mdima

Hi, according to the Steve's experience, I am trying to "slow down" a bit the panel… for example I changed TitleSpeed to 5 (as was in the configuration of the tarball package). This impacts on the screens that have a "scrolling"... let's see how it goes, I test it for some days...

Ciao,
Michele

mdima

reading some documentation about this "LCDd: error: huh? Too much data received… quiet down" error, maybe I could add some delay (10, 20ms) between each command the client sends to LCDd...