PC hardware to run LinxCNC

More
27 Jun 2012 20:58 - 27 Jun 2012 21:07 #21415 by gera229
Out of curiosity, why did you go with the path that gives out extra hassle by download Linux 10.04 and LinuxCNC separately instead of download one as a "package" on this website that installs both at the same time?

One more thing, I have quite a bit of updates for I think different things on a pop-up screen on start-up which happened after installing the wireless driver. I think it's got something to do with a package I downloaded and installed or something that was necessary to install the wireless drivers. Those updates pop-up probably not because the internet is connected where it would get these updates from because I do not remember having that updates pop-up with wired internet or LAN connected so I guess these updates are not from the internet. But correct me if I am wrong.
Should I perform the updates?
Last edit: 27 Jun 2012 21:07 by gera229.
The topic has been locked.
More
28 Jun 2012 10:52 - 28 Jun 2012 12:22 #21426 by AlexN
Replied by AlexN on topic Re:PC hardware to run LinxCNC
Updates are things that I'm a bit cautious about, in case the do something silly like overwrite the kernel. I have no idea about the wireless drivers since I've decided to connect the box solely via 1 Gbit ethernet cat 5 link. Having read that wireless (radio) signals can upset things where the machining is concerned. Don't take too much notice of my comments since I've only just got my toe back in the water as far as Linux is concerned.

I'm not sure why I went the long way around - I probably simply downloaded the wrong iso file from the repository, being rather dazed and confused by the hardware issues by then. Well, it sounds like a good excuse... Another good excuse is that it might have been because I was installing LinuxCNC 2.5 as opposed to EMC 2.4.

Speaking of using Linux again, the last time I had a working install that I had to tinker with - Slackware I think - the Xserver was XFree86. It seems that in the intervening years XFree86 has more or less become a dead duck, and the current operational Xserver is "xorg". Where things have really changed for me is that there is, of course, no XF86Config file that one can edit - but on the other hand, the co-called xorg.conf file is nowhere to be found on my 10.04 setup (searching using "updatedb/locate" in an xterm). I've been searching around and it seems that xorg.conf isn't much used. I need to be able to add tweaks for the touch-screen, but what I might put them in is completely opaque to me.

The build uses the old imake system; I have yet to start hacking paths in the driver's make file(s) yet to try and get it to find various dependencies. I must say I came to loathe automake/autoconf/etc., when I used them some years ago. I wonder if things have improved.
Last edit: 28 Jun 2012 12:22 by AlexN.
The topic has been locked.
More
28 Jun 2012 10:57 #21427 by AlexN
Replied by AlexN on topic Re:PC hardware to run LinxCNC
I meant to say in my previous post that I 've turned off hyperthreading and set up Kent Reed's 07_rtai per andypugh's recommendation. After this I was running the latency sniffer whilst building the aqsis renderer and installing various dev libs: the highest things got were 12656 ns and that figure remained at that value for the entire time I was thrashing the system about. That seems like a good figure to me, from what I've read - but I know next to nothing about all this at the moment.
The topic has been locked.
More
28 Jun 2012 11:56 #21428 by andypugh
AlexN wrote:

the current operational Xserver is "xorg". Where things have really changed for me is that there is, of course, no XF86Config file that one can edit - but on the other hand, the co-called xorg,conf file is nowhere to be found on my 10.04 setup.


Xorg.conf (I am fairly sure that it is capital X, and that that matters) is now optional. If you create one, then it will be used though.
The topic has been locked.
More
28 Jun 2012 12:23 - 28 Jun 2012 12:24 #21429 by AlexN
Replied by AlexN on topic Re:PC hardware to run LinxCNC
andypugh wrote:

AlexN wrote:

the current operational Xserver is "xorg". Where things have really changed for me is that there is, of course, no XF86Config file that one can edit - but on the other hand, the co-called xorg,conf file is nowhere to be found on my 10.04 setup.


Xorg.conf (I am fairly sure that it is capital X, and that that matters) is now optional. If you create one, then it will be used though.

Thanks for the tips. I'll re-read through the man page again and see what I can learn.
Last edit: 28 Jun 2012 12:24 by AlexN.
The topic has been locked.
More
28 Jun 2012 13:22 #21431 by ArcEye
Hi

the current operational Xserver is "xorg". Where things have really changed for me is that there is, of course, no XF86Config file that one can edit - but on the other hand, the co-called xorg,conf file is nowhere to be found on my 10.04 setup.

Xorg.conf (I am fairly sure that it is capital X, and that that matters) is now optional. If you create one, then it will be used though.


The file in /etc/X11 is called xorg.conf and the command to generate a new config is Xorg -configure

I updated the wiki a little while ago, in respect of installing the vesa drivers, which is where most people need to edit xorg.conf

wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Troubl...g#Using_Vesa_Drivers

Now shows a bit more info about creating xorg.conf where it does not exist (as in Ubuntu 10.04 and above by default)

regards
The topic has been locked.
More
28 Jun 2012 19:34 #21435 by gera229
AlexN wrote:

I meant to say in my previous post that I 've turned off hyperthreading and set up Kent Reed's 07_rtai per andypugh's recommendation. After this I was running the latency sniffer whilst building the aqsis renderer and installing various dev libs: the highest things got were 12656 ns and that figure remained at that value for the entire time I was thrashing the system about. That seems like a good figure to me, from what I've read - but I know next to nothing about all this at the moment.


Nice latency, what was the second jitter latency?

What about those big interval numbers? What were they?
The topic has been locked.
More
02 Jul 2012 02:57 #21477 by AlexN
Replied by AlexN on topic Re:PC hardware to run LinxCNC
ArcEye wrote:

Hi

the current operational Xserver is "xorg". Where things have really changed for me is that there is, of course, no XF86Config file that one can edit - but on the other hand, the co-called xorg,conf file is nowhere to be found on my 10.04 setup.

Xorg.conf (I am fairly sure that it is capital X, and that that matters) is now optional. If you create one, then it will be used though.


The file in /etc/X11 is called xorg.conf and the command to generate a new config is Xorg -configure

I updated the wiki a little while ago, in respect of installing the vesa drivers, which is where most people need to edit xorg.conf

wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Troubl...g#Using_Vesa_Drivers

Now shows a bit more info about creating xorg.conf where it does not exist (as in Ubuntu 10.04 and above by default)

regards


Hello ArcEye, thanks for the link :). I've been busy wrestling with other hardware concerns, including RS Australia having a problem with an order payment where I'd actually paid for it - the details were in my online bank records - with their claiming that I hadn't paid for it. they had also rung me me up about it twice, but their calls had sounded like a spam calls (ultra long delay/no answer, so I unknowingly hung up on them bot times)...

I also didn't seem to get the Forum's email headsups for the last two posts and didn't check the thread. Oh well.

Enough of the whinging and whining and bleating and squeaking ;).

Interestingly, I had a hunch that Ubuntu might be adding in the touchscreen support by default, so I installed a new version on the yawning chasm that is my 80 GB ssd - and lo and behold, the touchscreen worked "out-of-box" with no intervention from me :). It does, however, have the X-direction reversed; I'll nibble away at it in between getting the hardware all hooked up.

Speaking of trhe latter, I have to make a new cable per Andy's suggestion near the beginning of this thread - but with a literal twist: I can either use a ribbon cable or a "round" cable, but in either case I am going to have to solder one end of the new cable. Or take to the D525 MB and solder a different connector in place of the standar D25 female connector and thus smoking my warranty on the board (and potentially the board itself).

The other bit with a twist in it is that the SoundLogic board appears to have its pinouts "back to front" (although not upside down), which means being careful tsolder the pins backwards from teh standard pinouts. At least, that's how it looks: I'm going to run through this several times before firing up the soldering iron, as I don't want to have to solder the 25-pin IDC conector twice!

Cheers,
Alex.
The topic has been locked.
More
02 Jul 2012 03:07 - 02 Jul 2012 05:22 #21478 by AlexN
Replied by AlexN on topic Re:PC hardware to run LinxCNC
gera229 wrote:

Nice latency, what was the second jitter latency?

What about those big interval numbers? What were they?

Here's the full output from that snapshot of the latency sniffer, converted to text:
Max Interval (ns)       Max Jitter (ns)       Last Interval (ns)
Servo thread (1.0ms)                 1012966		                   18603                       995324
Base thread (25.0us)                     41894                    17015                         23243

Setting that table up so that it lined up OK in the Forum preview was really weird, even using the "code" element (and because I used the "code" element, I had to remove the bold formatting ;))...

BTW, the latencies are around 7000-8000 ns when just running the sniffer by itself, "isolcpus=1", hyperthreading nuked, etc.

HTH,
Alex.
Last edit: 02 Jul 2012 05:22 by AlexN.
The topic has been locked.
More
02 Jul 2012 05:45 - 02 Jul 2012 05:46 #21479 by gera229
My question was based on your post where you already disabled hyperthreading and already set Isolcpus to 1.

Reread it, I mainly asked if the first jitter latency was no higher than 12656 (you said that's the value you got with it all setup properly with hyperthreading disabled and Isolcpus set to 1), what was the second jitter latency and what values were both of the interval latencies?

Gera
Last edit: 02 Jul 2012 05:46 by gera229.
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.122 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum