On Friday June 25 2004 9:42 am, BandiPat wrote: [snip]

Sure, you could probably do that now Thom, if you want to preload everything into memory, like Windows does.  But then those poor blokes with only 128mb or even 256mb of ram are sure going to be doing a bit of swapping, huh?  ;o)

If 3-4 seconds out of your day proves to be life threatening, then maybe using a computer is something you shouldn't do.  By the time you move the mouse pointer to start another app, the shell window is open!  Of course, there is always Opteron & SCSI drives!  :o)

You missed the point entirely! 9.1 IS slower than prior releases, and it of course shouldn't be. I have a fresh install on my dual PIII 600Mhz IBM Intelistation (SCSI) with 1G of RAM. It's SLOW. Fred -- "Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."

On Saturday June 26 2004 12:25 am, Bill Wisse wrote:

On Friday 25 June 2004 16:40, Fred Miller wrote:

...

You missed the point entirely! 9.1 IS slower than prior releases, and it of course shouldn't be. I have a fresh install on my dual PIII 600Mhz IBM Intelistation (SCSI) with 1G of RAM. It's SLOW.

I just finished a 2G HP......it's slow. Fred -- "Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."

On Saturday 26 June 2004 02:20 pm, BandiPat wrote:

On Friday 25 June 2004 11:40 pm, Fred Miller wrote:

...

On Friday June 25 2004 9:42 am, BandiPat wrote:

[snip]

...

Sure, you could probably do that now Thom, if you want to preload everything into memory, like Windows does.  But then those poor blokes with only 128mb or even 256mb of ram are sure going to be doing a bit of swapping, huh?  ;o)

If 3-4 seconds out of your day proves to be life threatening, then maybe using a computer is something you shouldn't do.  By the time you move the mouse pointer to start another app, the shell window is open!  Of course, there is always Opteron & SCSI drives!  :o)

You missed the point entirely! 9.1 IS slower than prior releases, and it of course shouldn't be. I have a fresh install on my dual PIII 600Mhz IBM Intelistation (SCSI) with 1G of RAM. It's SLOW.

Fred

I've spent the day putting 9.1 on a Thinkpad X30 and I too noticed how slow things were. Could find anything that was slurping cycles, nor any other problem. I noticed, though, that I was getting an error when I did a 'sux'. Some message about hostname (which I had already set up) . Didn't pay any attention to it because sux still worked and I had a lot of other things to do first. But that gave me a clue... and something to try as a test would be: rcnetwork stop Things immediately sped up... and I wasn't even connected to my LAN at the time. Must have been spending a lot of time doing a DNS lookup or such. Later I realized I hadn't added my hostname to the /etc/hosts file so I did that and now everything is still flying even with the network up. Try shutting the network down first to see if it helps... if so, then go find what it's looking for. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 06/26/04 15:05 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Be a better psychiatrist and the world will beat a psychopath to your door."

Fred Miller wrote:

On Saturday June 26 2004 2:20 pm, BandiPat wrote:

[snip]

...

Then my first guess would be that short between the keyboard and chair Fred, as I have setup a customer's machine, 533mhz Celeron, and it's quite nice, even using the built-in graphics! Not something that I would want to use, but adequate just the same and again comparable or better than when it had 8.2 or 9.0 installed.

Congrats......it's rare. I can't tell you how many installs I've....they're ALL slow to varying degrees. My guess is the cause is the 2.6 kernel and AT LEAST some modules if not all.

Fred

The 2.6 kernel seems to be getting a bad reputation, root of all ills etc., I've been using from 2.6.0-pre kernels onwards on SuSE 9.0 and now 9.1, it's OK and much faster than 2.4.x for many of the reasons detailed in several articles and it will be the reason why many enterprises switch to Linux. I must see if I can find some benchmarks on google. Whatever the cause, it's not likely to be the kernel unless SuSE did something stupid, if they did, I've not noticed a slowdown. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 22:40, Michael James wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:11 am, Sid Boyce wrote:

...

The 2.6 kernel seems to be getting a bad reputation, root of all ills etc., I've been using from 2.6.0-pre kernels onwards on SuSE 9.0 and now 9.1, it's OK and much faster than 2.4.x for many of the reasons detailed in several articles and it will be the reason why many enterprises switch to Linux. I must see if I can find some benchmarks on google. Whatever the cause, it's not likely to be the kernel unless SuSE did something stupid, if they did, I've not noticed a slowdown.

I played with the 2.6 kernel under 9.0 and it seemed faster, quicker to boot and more responsive.

Module hassles drove me back to 2.4 but I couldn't wait for the non-experimental release in 9.1.

Something might be mis-configured, but so far 9.1 is terrible.

Fresh vanilla install P4 2.4 Gig 1 Gig ram, nvidia 440 using nv driver.

Applications take forever to launch, it can take Kmail 20 seconds to get to the next mail message the system can lock up solid (mouse can't move cursor) for 5 minutes then come good!

I see swapd up high in top and I've got a gig of ram? The normal raft of apps run about 400 Meg: Kmail (I'm sus of that one) Firefox 20 Konsoles (on 10 desktops) xmms a luxury sometimes vmware dangerous Grip fatal

Yes it's a lot but 9.0 (and 8.2 and 8.1) did it OK.

If I rip some CDs using Grip and encode it with flac I'll be pulling the plug before the 3rd CD. Running System Monitor (SuSE:System:More Programs:Memory Monitor) shows no sign of a memory leak but inexplicable swapping.

I see X taking a lot of resources, so I'll try dropping resolution from 24 to 16.

9.1 will get there eventually but right now, it's running with diagnostics on every desktop. Once it's "in the zone" it won't redraw.

And I'm watching the trace on System Monitor as if it were a relative on life support.

IMHO you have done done something wrong. I get better performance on a PII 350 with 256mb. Look into the IPv6 thread. BTW how large is your swap partition? Check your fstab. I removed the subfs experiment from both of my machines. CWSIV

On Monday June 28 2004 5:47 pm, BandiPat wrote:

...

Congrats......it's rare. I can't tell you how many installs I've....they're ALL slow to varying degrees. My guess is the cause is the 2.6 kernel and AT LEAST some modules if not all.

Fred

===========

Or it could be all that "superior" hardware you get, while the rest of use this old SiS stuff that won't work.  Oh wait a minute, mine does work!  And well it does.  :o)

So seem to persist in being ignorant. The vast majority of these systems aren't built by me (only 1 or 2), but are from Dell, HP, IBM, and others, and range from brand new to about 4 yrs. old.

I'm sure the 2.6 kernel introduce many new things to us and could affect different hardware differently, but everything I've installed on thus far is very sweet running.

You system is NOT the only system running 9.1, and you're experience is limited. Fred -- "Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."

On Tuesday 29 June 2004 09:40, Bill Wisse wrote:

On Monday 28 June 2004 17:12, Fred Miller wrote:

...

So seem to persist in being ignorant. The vast majority of these systems aren't built by me (only 1 or 2), but are from Dell, HP, IBM, and others, and range from brand new to about 4 yrs. old.

...

I'm sure the 2.6 kernel introduce many new things to us and could affect different hardware differently, but everything I've installed on thus far is very sweet running.

You system is NOT the only system running 9.1, and you're experience is limited.

Fred, why are you getting angry when we disagree with you? I told you before, 9.1 is faster then 9.0. ( well on my system anyway) -- Greetings from

/bill at 169 west , 19 south.

Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors."

Thinks fred is becomming Busterbloodvessel the second at this rate just for the books this system is considerably quicker on 9.1 than it was on 9.0 and itś an upgrade not a clean install Asrock MoBo Athlon XP2500 + clocked a little running 2160 Mhz XP2700+ and 128 Mb Nvidia Graphics Pete . -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan PGN

On Tuesday 29 Jun 2004 19:03, Fred Miller wrote:

On Tuesday June 29 2004 4:48 am, peter Nikolic wrote:

[snip]

...

Thinks fred is becomming      Busterbloodvessel   the second at this rate just for the books this system is considerably quicker on 9.1 than it was on 9.0  and itś an upgrade not a clean install Asrock MoBo  Athlon XP2500 +  clocked a little  running 2160 Mhz XP2700+   and 128 Mb Nvidia  Graphics

No, but I'm beginning to agree with Ben, in that maybe 2.6 was released too soon. Because of the update kernel snafoo, I had to do a fresh install when I had a good running updated 9.0. The fresh install IS slower.

Fred

-- "Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."

all i can say is you gotta have an hardware issue somewhere then cus it IS faster than 9.0 on as you have seen me post several times relativley minor hardware here plus loaded down with seti units ect Pete. -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan PGN

On Tuesday 29 June 2004 03:29 pm, Fred Miller wrote:

On Tuesday June 29 2004 3:04 pm, peter Nikolic wrote:

[snip]

...

all i can say is you gotta have  an hardware issue somewhere then   cus it IS faster than 9.0  on as you have seen me post several times relativley minor hardware here plus loaded down with seti units ect

IF it's a hardware issue, and I don't think it is, it HAS to be a very common piece of firmware. MOST of the installs I've done, there are quite a few, have ended up being slower than 9.0. Yes, there are a couple that are about the same. Further, there's VERY LITTLE that's common to these desktop systems, if anything.

Fred

Would there be some kind of test you could tell me (us) about that appears very slow to you? So we can try it for ourselves in various configurations? I can run either an SuSE kernel or a vanilla kernel on either 9.0 or 9.1. Might prove something. I was thinking along the lines of how long it takes OO to come up but that would vary a lot based on disks, RAM, and cpu speed.

-- "Ballmer is no more designed for the art of persuasion than the Abrams tank is for delivering meals on wheels."

-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 06/29/04 18:02 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Prosperity is when your conversation changes from car pools to swimming pools."

answering my own post here after having read more of this thread: I'm going to compile my own kernel I think after I put in a second hard drive. (googled forums on 9.1 issues seemed nastier than usual) cheers all! Thom Nuzum

On Tuesday 29 June 2004 12:12 am, Fred Miller wrote:

On Monday June 28 2004 5:47 pm, BandiPat wrote:

...

...

Congrats......it's rare. I can't tell you how many installs I've....they're ALL slow to varying degrees. My guess is the cause is the 2.6 kernel and AT LEAST some modules if not all.

Fred

===========

Or it could be all that "superior" hardware you get, while the rest of use this old SiS stuff that won't work.  Oh wait a minute, mine does work!  And well it does.  :o)

So seem to persist in being ignorant. The vast majority of these systems aren't built by me (only 1 or 2), but are from Dell, HP, IBM, and others, and range from brand new to about 4 yrs. old. ============== Fred, You have a bad tendency to call others names when they really only apply to you and your thinking. The only thing ignorant is you, unwilling to consider other points of view. So that's the better hardware you use, well ok, I understand now.

...

I'm sure the 2.6 kernel introduce many new things to us and could affect different hardware differently, but everything I've installed on thus far is very sweet running.

You system is NOT the only system running 9.1, and you're experience is limited.

Fred =========

Right, my experience is limited as I've only used computers for a few days now. Oh and that is "your", not "you're" or "you"! Guess your english is lacking as well as your open mindedness. Is that a word? :o) Lee -- --- KMail v1.6.2 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.1 --- Registered Linux User #225206 On any other day, that might seem strange...

...

Does SUSE or KDE have a plan on getting this time down?

As far as I know, the KDE team tries to optimize for speed too. But don't expect new versions of KDE to be fast on a 550 MHz PIII machine, the CPU is too obsolete now. On modern machines with e.g. 2.4 GHz P4, the KDE performance is quite OK.

Quite OK? Try switching from Konqueror to Firefox and feel the difference in speed.

It's not more than 4 minutes - it's 2 minutes and 40 seconds on an obsolete machine. Sure, it would be nice if didn't take more than 20

Well, I got a Compaq 2.8 GHz with lots of RAM and it still is way to slow. It is not even the problem of starting up (who shuts down his computer these days?) but the interface responsiveness, those short, but noticeable delays when you click a link in konqueror or select a menu item from KDE menu. But then, of course, noone forces you to use KDE. I use Window Maker, standard xterm (and not konsole, which is slooooooow), Firefox or Opera as the primary browser. I have but libkde3 and some minor tools (like kdm, which I rather like) installed; but if you want, you can always use KDE programs outside of the KDE environment.

seconds but most income comes from the server market now and these machines reboot just several times per year.

Remember that on many machines users have to log in and log out all the day, and KDE is slow not during the reboot process, but after you log in. Our students curse the KDE because of that, "just like Windows" -- they say. By the way -- anyone using pam_unix2 authentification here? We use krb5 authentification with the LDAP server. I always takes around 20 s to just log in; at the same time, with Debian and pam_unix it takes almost no time at all. Anyone shares this experience? Regards j.

I find 9.1 much faster to load than Windows XP so I guess it is relative. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandr Malusek" To: Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.1 is sloooooowwww

January Weiner writes:

...

Well, I got a Compaq 2.8 GHz with lots of RAM and it still is way to slow.

Any numbers?

...

Remember that on many machines users have to log in and log out all the day, and KDE is slow not during the reboot process, but after you log in.

Yes, the KDE session startup could be faster. It takes about 15 seconds on my machine (dual 2.4 GHz Xeon). I guess the time must be much longer when /home is mounted via NFS on a busy network.

-- A.M.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com