this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

8119 readers
36 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

  1. Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.

  2. Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.

  3. Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.

  4. No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.

  5. No NSFW adult content

  6. Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
16
Swap causing very slow boot (and systemd says the swap partition became active after 500k years) (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm dualbooting Fedora Kinoite (ublue-nvidia image) with Windows 11 and I have a boot time of over 1 minute (only on the Fedora side).

The output of systemd-analyze critical-chain is:

└─sddm.service @16.435s
  └─plymouth-quit.service @16.315s +107ms
    └─systemd-user-sessions.service @16.299s +12ms
      └─remote-fs.target @16.298s
        └─remote-fs-pre.target @16.298s
          └─nfs-client.target @16.298s
            └─gssproxy.service @16.288s +9ms
              └─network.target @16.285s
                └─wpa_supplicant.service @16.281s +4ms
                  └─basic.target @14.798s
                    └─dbus-broker.service @14.774s +22ms
                      └─dbus.socket @14.760s
                        └─sysinit.target @14.757s
                          └─systemd-resolved.service @14.696s +61ms
                            └─systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service @14.584s +96ms
                              └─local-fs.target @14.569s
                                └─run-user-1000-doc.mount @23.123s
                                  └─run-user-1000.mount @22.463s
                                    └─swap.target @1.410s
                                      └─dev-disk-by\x2duuid-819f25f8\x2daf77\x2d4d7b\x2daaf7\x2dadb07819a7b1.swap @1.276s +35ms
                                        └─dev-disk-by\x2duuid-819f25f8\x2daf77\x2d4d7b\x2daaf7\x2dadb07819a7b1.device @584542y 2w 2d 20h 46.792s +1min 3.997s

First of all, I would like to know what the hell is going on with that 584542 years active time lol

Anyway, the x2dadb07819a7b1 UUID belongs to the swap partition.

Output of lsblk -f:

NAME                                          FSTYPE      FSVER LABEL       UUID                                 FSAVAIL FSUSE% MOUNTPOINTS
zram0                                                                                                                           [SWAP]
nvme0n1                                                                                                                         
├─nvme0n1p1                                   vfat        FAT32 EFI         AAFB-90EA                             553.6M     7% /boot/efi
├─nvme0n1p2                                   ext4        1.0   fedora-boot a1457f7b-c1fb-40da-9c6f-98356d9003e2  526.8M    39% /boot
├─nvme0n1p3                                   ext4        1.0   fedora-root 0e748e63-f5f5-42f1-babd-818054eb9ee5   40.8G    35% /var
│                                                                                                                               /sysroot/ostree/deploy/fedora/var
│                                                                                                                               /usr
│                                                                                                                               /etc
│                                                                                                                               /
│                                                                                                                               /sysroot
├─nvme0n1p4                                   swap        1     fedora-swap 819f25f8-af77-4d7b-aaf7-adb07819a7b1                [SWAP]
├─nvme0n1p5                                   crypto_LUKS 2                 ea073ead-906c-4127-9555-efba204baabf                
│ └─luks-ea073ead-906c-4127-9555-efba204baabf ext4        1.0   fedora-home e37f299a-84f5-46ce-976c-507b8e8e25f8      1T     1% /var/home
├─nvme0n1p6                                   ntfs              Extra       74FE8F25FE8EDF2C                                    
├─nvme0n1p7                                                                                                                     
├─nvme0n1p8                                   BitLocker   2                                                                     
└─nvme0n1p9                                   ntfs                          C02807922807869E

What should I do?

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Just speculation on my end but it could be because you've got an encrypted home partition on a different partition of the same physical device. If you've got enough RAM and ZRAM for swap, why not try disabling the swap partition entirely?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Second this because:

  1. Ideally, a swap partition should always be on a secondary physical device than your home directory. Or anything else, if possible, as there will be high i/o during times of high memory activity and memory/swap maintenance.
  2. Your bottleneck is exacerbated more by the excessive overhead of on-the-fly decryption activity on the same physical device
  3. All of this can be avoided by eliminating swap, which isn’t necessary if you have sufficient RAM.
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. That's the same theoretical underpinning I had for my guess.

Thanks for laying it out so concisely.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I might actually end up disabling swap in the end. I wanted to update that apparently I “fixed” the problem (not sure if permanently) by turning off the pc, unplugging the PSU, and holding down the power button for 30 seconds. Normal reboots weren’t enough. I’ll take it for now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

All of this can be avoided by eliminating swap, which isn’t necessary if you have sufficient RAM

This isn't true. Swap also exists to offload old cached memory pages. No Swap means your system can't do that

This explains it a lot better than I could