9.2 is really slow

Steve

8 Nov 2004 8 Nov '04

00:39

Hi, I've just installed 9.2 on my test machine, a 300MHz PII with 256MB of ram. Given the stats of the machine, linux has always been a bit slow, but it's always been usable for me. With 9.2, however, the performance is pathetic. The install took the better part of 3 days (normally this takes me ~2 hours). Installing the software itself took > 15 hours - something that normally takes ~1 hour. With 9.1, the load while idle was ~0. With 9.2, it's between 4 and 6. I installed Suse the same way I've done it for the last 4 years and nothing really special about how I install it (as usual, I choose the "no acpi" option, but that and using the same partition setup is about the only special things I do). Since I haven't heard anybody else complain about this yet, I assume that there's something special about my situation (can't say what, though). Is there some option I missed in the install (something like, don't insert a "while (1);" loop in the kernel :)? Or some way to find out what is sucking up the cpu time (top lists X as the only process getting any significant cpu time). Thanks, Steve

Show replies by date

Steve Kratz

8 Nov 8 Nov

17:51

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

...

is pathetic. The install took the better part of 3 days (normally this takes me ~2 hours). Installing the software itself took > 15 hours - something that normally takes ~1 hour. With 9.1, the load while idle was ~0. With 9.2, it's between 4 and 6. I installed Suse the same way I've done it for the last 4 years and nothing really special about how I install it (as usual, I choose the "no acpi" option, but that and using the same partition setup is about the only special things I do). Since I haven't heard anybody else complain about this yet, I assume that there's something special about my situation (can't say what, though). Is there some option I missed in the install (something like, don't insert a "while (1);" loop in the kernel :)? Or some way to find out what is sucking up the cpu time (top lists X as the only process getting any significant cpu time).

I think there may be something up with the install option for ACPI... Possibly due to an ACPI bug in the stock kernel (My own guess-- may end up being wrong... but here goes!) I installed 9.2 on a Celeron 3.66/192 mb Thinkpad. ACPI has never really worked on it on the past, so I tried using the Disable ACPI install option. It CRAWLED. I cancelled it, installing it with the normal install option (and then when I got far enough to set the GRUB options, I added acpi=off apm=on to the kernel boot options). Then I had to manually install the powersave package. The MAJOR problem I had with 9.2 is the stock kernel that comes with it has an ACPI bug in it that "effects some old Thinkpads" - After the final reboot, things got VERY unstable. I couldn't even run in INIT 3 without hard-locks. After I installed the updated kernel (laptop kicking and screaming the entire way!) it's working flawlessly now. (I had to boot off a rescue cd, mount my "real" filesystem, chroot to it, THEN install the kernel update.) All in all, it seems to run just as well as 9.1 did.

Steve

9 Nov 9 Nov

06:12

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

Steve Kratz wrote:

...

I think there may be something up with the install option for ACPI... Possibly due to an ACPI bug in the stock kernel (My own guess-- may end up being wrong... but here goes!)

I installed 9.2 on a Celeron 3.66/192 mb Thinkpad. ACPI has never really worked on it on the past, so I tried using the Disable ACPI install option. It CRAWLED. I cancelled it, installing it with the normal install option (and then when I got far enough to set the GRUB options, I added acpi=off apm=on to the kernel boot options). Then I had to manually install the powersave package.

The MAJOR problem I had with 9.2 is the stock kernel that comes with it has an ACPI bug in it that "effects some old Thinkpads" - After the final reboot, things got VERY unstable. I couldn't even run in INIT 3 without hard-locks. After I installed the updated kernel (laptop kicking and screaming the entire way!) it's working flawlessly now. (I had to boot off a rescue cd, mount my "real" filesystem, chroot to it, THEN install the kernel update.)

Thanks. The new kernel helps a lot, but it's still much slower than it needs to be. Something is still trying to access my dvd a few times a second (even though there is no cd or dvd in the device). I assume some process is probing it to see if I've inserted anything in the last .5 seconds. I'd like to turn that off and see if that helps any. Does anybody know what process might be doing this (suseplugger seems to have gone away in 9.2)? Thanks, Steve

Carlos E. R.

10 Nov 10 Nov

00:14

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

The Monday 2004-11-08 at 22:12 -0800, Steve wrote:

...

Thanks. The new kernel helps a lot, but it's still much slower than it needs to be. Something is still trying to access my dvd a few times a second (even though there is no cd or dvd in the device). I assume some process is probing it to see if I've inserted anything in the last .5 seconds. I'd like to turn that off and see if that helps any. Does anybody know what process might be doing this (suseplugger seems to have gone away in 9.2)?

Automount? Or settings of the kind "play CD as soon as the door closses". Try leaving a CD in there, and see if the system feels faster. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Steve

05:11

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Monday 2004-11-08 at 22:12 -0800, Steve wrote:

...
Thanks. The new kernel helps a lot, but it's still much slower than it needs to be. Something is still trying to access my dvd a few times a second (even though there is no cd or dvd in the device). I assume some process is probing it to see if I've inserted anything in the last .5 seconds. I'd like to turn that off and see if that helps any. Does anybody know what process might be doing this (suseplugger seems to have gone away in 9.2)?

Automount?

How do I turn off automount? I can't find it anywhere.

...

Or settings of the kind "play CD as soon as the door closses".

Try leaving a CD in there, and see if the system feels faster.

Yeah, I tried that, but to no avail. I've found that it seems to be a KDE thing. When I run with Gnome, I don't see the problem. I've tried turning off a couple of things related to kded (mountwatcher and driverwatcher), but that didn't seem to change anything. Rather frustrating. Thanks, Steve

Carlos E. R.

12:51

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

The Tuesday 2004-11-09 at 21:11 -0800, Steve wrote:

...

...
Automount?

How do I turn off automount? I can't find it anywhere.

In fstab. With automount, the line could be: /dev/cdrom /media/cdrom subfs fs=cdfss,ro,procuid,nosuid,nodev,exec 0 0 without, something like: /dev/cdrom /media/cdrom auto ro,noauto,user,exec 0 0

...

...
Or settings of the kind "play CD as soon as the door closses".

Try leaving a CD in there, and see if the system feels faster.

Yeah, I tried that, but to no avail.

I've found that it seems to be a KDE thing. When I run with Gnome, I don't see the problem. I've tried turning off a couple of things related to kded (mountwatcher and driverwatcher), but that didn't seem to change anything. Rather frustrating.

I suppose it is. I don't use much kde, so I don't know... more than one have mentioned the same thing about the CD light. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Steve

17:11

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Tuesday 2004-11-09 at 21:11 -0800, Steve wrote:

...
...
Automount?

How do I turn off automount? I can't find it anywhere.

In fstab. With automount, the line could be:

/dev/cdrom /media/cdrom subfs fs=cdfss,ro,procuid,nosuid,nodev,exec 0 0

without, something like:

/dev/cdrom /media/cdrom auto ro,noauto,user,exec 0 0

Beautiful!! Things work great now. Thanks very much! Steve

...

...
...
Or settings of the kind "play CD as soon as the door closses".

Try leaving a CD in there, and see if the system feels faster.

Yeah, I tried that, but to no avail.

I've found that it seems to be a KDE thing. When I run with Gnome, I don't see the problem. I've tried turning off a couple of things related to kded (mountwatcher and driverwatcher), but that didn't seem to change anything. Rather frustrating.

I suppose it is. I don't use much kde, so I don't know... more than one have mentioned the same thing about the CD light.

Carlos E. R.

23:09

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

The Wednesday 2004-11-10 at 09:11 -0800, Steve wrote:

...

...
...
...
Automount?

...

...
/dev/cdrom /media/cdrom auto ro,noauto,user,exec 0 0

Beautiful!! Things work great now. Thanks very much!

I'm surprised that it was so easy after all! :-o I hoped that could be the problem, but I half feared that it wouldn't. Nice :-) And, does it make your system faster? I'm curious. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Steve

23:57

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Wednesday 2004-11-10 at 09:11 -0800, Steve wrote:

...
...
...
...
Automount?

...

...
...
/dev/cdrom /media/cdrom auto ro,noauto,user,exec 0 0

Beautiful!! Things work great now. Thanks very much!

I'm surprised that it was so easy after all! :-o

I hoped that could be the problem, but I half feared that it wouldn't. Nice :-)

And, does it make your system faster? I'm curious.

Yes. So looking at the loads output from xosview, I had: Initial install: Load > 5 Patched kernel from YOU: 1 < Load < 2 Removing automount: Load ~ 0.1 My system is back to its peppy self (or as peppy as a 300MHz PII is likely to get). Steve

peter Nikolic

23:54

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Wednesday 10 Nov 2004 12:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Tuesday 2004-11-09 at 21:11 -0800, Steve wrote:

...
...
Automount?

How do I turn off automount? I can't find it anywhere.

In fstab. With automount, the line could be:

/dev/cdrom /media/cdrom subfs fs=cdfss,ro,procuid,nosuid,nodev,exec 0 0

without, something like:

/dev/cdrom /media/cdrom auto ro,noauto,user,exec 0 0

...
...
Or settings of the kind "play CD as soon as the door closses".

Try leaving a CD in there, and see if the system feels faster.

Yeah, I tried that, but to no avail.

I've found that it seems to be a KDE thing. When I run with Gnome, I don't see the problem. I've tried turning off a couple of things related to kded (mountwatcher and driverwatcher), but that didn't seem to change anything. Rather frustrating.

I suppose it is. I don't use much kde, so I don't know... more than one have mentioned the same thing about the CD light.

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson Hummmm

KDE ain't slow here on 9,2 and gnome dont run it falls over no problem with the cd/dvd light . pete. -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..

Don Parris

18:13

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Sunday 07 November 2004 19:39, Steve wrote:

...

Hi, I've just installed 9.2 on my test machine, a 300MHz PII with 256MB of ram. Given the stats of the machine, linux has always been a bit slow, but it's always been usable for me. With 9.2, however, the performance is pathetic. The install took the better part of 3 days (normally this takes me ~2 hours). Installing the software itself took > 15 hours - something that normally takes ~1 hour. With 9.1, the load while idle was ~0. With 9.2, it's between 4 and 6. I installed Suse the same way I've done it for the last 4 years and nothing really special about how I install it (as usual, I choose the "no acpi" option, but that and using the same partition setup is about the only special things I do). Since I haven't heard anybody else complain about this yet, I assume that there's something special about my situation (can't say what, though). Is there some option I missed in the install (something like, don't insert a "while (1);" loop in the kernel :)? Or some way to find out what is sucking up the cpu time (top lists X as the only process getting any significant cpu time).

Thanks, Steve

I've noticed my 1.3 GHz AMD box takes 2:18 from power-on to login screen. From there to settled desktop is nearly another full minute. I could understand that better on my old P-II/350 box. I can't think of anything I'm doing different now than I did on my old box with SUSE 8.0, as far as apps & services are concerned. Don -- DC Parris GNU Evangelist http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere!"

Deep Thinker

18:21

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:13:57 -0500, Don Parris wrote:

...

On Sunday 07 November 2004 19:39, Steve wrote:

...
Hi, I've just installed 9.2 on my test machine, a 300MHz PII with 256MB of ram. Given the stats of the machine, linux has always been a bit slow, but it's always been usable for me. With 9.2, however, the performance is pathetic. The install took the better part of 3 days (normally this takes me ~2 hours). Installing the software itself took > 15 hours - something that normally takes ~1 hour. With 9.1, the load while idle was ~0. With 9.2, it's between 4 and 6. I installed Suse the same way I've done it for the last 4 years and nothing really special about how I install it (as usual, I choose the "no acpi" option, but that and using the same partition setup is about the only special things I do). Since I haven't heard anybody else complain about this yet, I assume that there's something special about my situation (can't say what, though). Is there some option I missed in the install (something like, don't insert a "while (1);" loop in the kernel :)? Or some way to find out what is sucking up the cpu time (top lists X as the only process getting any significant cpu time).

Thanks, Steve

I've noticed my 1.3 GHz AMD box takes 2:18 from power-on to login screen. From there to settled desktop is nearly another full minute. I could understand that better on my old P-II/350 box. I can't think of anything I'm doing different now than I did on my old box with SUSE 8.0, as far as apps & services are concerned.

Don -- DC Parris GNU Evangelist http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere!"

-- 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

Is 9.2 available for download/FTP install now? -- d33p th1nk3r

Stephen Boulet

11 Nov 11 Nov

06:55

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Wednesday 10 November 2004 12:13 pm, Don Parris wrote:

...

I've noticed my 1.3 GHz AMD box takes 2:18 from power-on to login screen.

...
From there to settled desktop is nearly another full minute. I could

understand that better on my old P-II/350 box. I can't think of anything I'm doing different now than I did on my old box with SUSE 8.0, as far as apps & services are concerned.

Don

Looking at the boot messages I find they scroll past very slowly -- at about a line a second, once I get into mounting partitions, which just doesn't look right. I'm running an Athlon 2700+ with a gig of RAM. -- Stephen If your desktop gets out of control easily, you probably have too much stuff on it that doesn't need to be there. Donna Smallin, "Unclutter Your Home"

peter Nikolic

09:14

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 Nov 2004 06:55, Stephen Boulet wrote:

...

On Wednesday 10 November 2004 12:13 pm, Don Parris wrote:

...
I've noticed my 1.3 GHz AMD box takes 2:18 from power-on to login screen. �

...
From there to settled desktop is nearly another full minute. �I could

understand that better on my old P-II/350 box. �I can't think of anything I'm doing different now than I did on my old box with SUSE 8.0, as far as apps & services are concerned.

Don

Looking at the boot messages I find they scroll past very slowly -- at about a line a second, once I get into mounting partitions, which just doesn't look right. I'm running an Athlon 2700+ with a gig of RAM.

--

Stephen

If your desktop gets out of control easily, you probably have too much stuff on it that doesn't need to be there. Donna Smallin, "Unclutter Your Home"

Wonder just what's going on it flies on my Athlon 2700+ with 512Mb ram it's just a pity the install was so PRE ALPHA it took a few days to get it all installed and cooking. compare hardware time i think .. here Asrock K7S8X Mobo Athlon 2400+ clocked seen as Athlon 2700+ 512 Mb ram no big name stuff here just cheapo bulk stuff Video card Generic Nvidia GeForce Fx5200 & 128Mb ram Hda: Maxtor 6Y120L0, ATA 133 DISK drive 120Gb Hdb: WDC WD800BB-00CAA1, ATA 100 DISK drive 80Gb Hdc: HL-DT-ST RW/DVD GCC-4521B, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive Dma is turned on on all drives Pete. -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..

jfweber＠bellsouth.net

12:12

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

*** Reply to message from peter Nikolic on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:14:52 +0000 One more candle and a trip around the Sun***

...

Wonder just what's going on it flies on my Athlon 2700+ with 512Mb ram it's just a pity the install was so PRE ALPHA it took a few days to get it all installed and cooking.

um, could you be more specific? Are you saying that you had an curses install , rather than a graphical one? Or was something else going on? Usually Ncurses happens when the box is really old i.e. my old cellery, and one other person who has an old "Quote"

...

...
understand that better on my old P-II/350 box. "en quote"

But all the others I have had use a graphical install and that is pretty quick. I am told the Ncurses install is a really hands on tweakers delight. Tho I can't say I enjoy it much. Especially as my mouse isn't recognized at all and everything is tab key .. bah! Looking at your hardware I don't see anything that jumps off the page. But, if you are saying the graphical install is pre-alpha, I will just have to disagree. Especially if you come from a Red Hat environment. Because in that case you aren't going to be nervous or frightened by all the choices you have. <G> That seems to be the single most frightening thing for complete newbies. They have to answer questions and make decisions about how they want the thing setup. oh well back to the backups... this box has been whining that all the others have 9.2 and it doesn't <G> -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit

peter Nikolic

19:30

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 Nov 2004 12:12, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

...

*** Reply to message from peter Nikolic on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:14:52 +0000 One more candle and a trip around the Sun***

...
Wonder just what's going on it flies on my Athlon 2700+ with 512Mb ram it's just a pity the install was so PRE ALPHA it took a few days to get it all installed and cooking.

um, could you be more specific? Are you saying that you had an curses install , rather than a graphical one? Or was something else going on? Usually Ncurses happens when the box is really old i.e. my old cellery, and one other person who has an old "Quote"

...
...
understand that better on my old P-II/350 box. "en quote"

But all the others I have had use a graphical install and that is pretty quick. I am told the Ncurses install is a really hands on tweakers delight. Tho I can't say I enjoy it much. Especially as my mouse isn't recognized at all and everything is tab key .. bah! Looking at your hardware I don't see anything that jumps off the page. But, if you are saying the graphical install is pre-alpha, I will just have to disagree. Especially if you come from a Red Hat environment. Because in that case you aren't going to be nervous or frightened by all the choices you have. <G>

That seems to be the single most frightening thing for complete newbies. They have to answer questions and make decisions about how they want the thing setup.

oh well back to the backups... this box has been whining that all the others have 9.2 and it doesn't <G>

-- j -- nemo me impune lacessit No it was the graphical install it kept failing with errors unpacking files all over the place i started to make a list of the fails at one stage but it was every other file then it would freeze so restart and it would be another set of files and so on it is not the CD/DVD drive as i installed a brand new one to check still the same it is not memory tested that out all ok .

I run a clocked processor so i reset all that to factory settings still the same . in the long run i found the dodge was to start an windBloZe xp install crash it out then 9.2 installed sweet as anything , So to make sure i deleted the partitions on the NEW HD and tried again same old game with fails all over the place start and crash an XP install then 9.2 flies on now if any one can explain that one to me i am all ears BTW i have been running Linux since kernels way back in the early 0.9x.XX series before there was any X or kde or gnome when you needed separate boot partitions and it came on a mountain of floppy's big enough to cause a road block. Oh the mouse detection is totally wrong as well YMMV Pete. -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..

Eric Scott

14:57

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 November 2004 00:55, Stephen Boulet wrote:

...

On Wednesday 10 November 2004 12:13 pm, Don Parris wrote:

...
I've noticed my 1.3 GHz AMD box takes 2:18 from power-on to login screen.

...
From there to settled desktop is nearly another full minute. I could

understand that better on my old P-II/350 box. I can't think of anything I'm doing different now than I did on my old box with SUSE 8.0, as far as apps & services are concerned.

Don

Looking at the boot messages I find they scroll past very slowly -- at about a line a second, once I get into mounting partitions, which just doesn't look right. I'm running an Athlon 2700+ with a gig of RAM.

My useless two cents: My AMD AthlonXP 2000 Box w/ 256MB RAM takes like 30 seconds for a complete reboot w/ 9.2. Just while we're on the topic. :-P Cheers, SigmaChi -- Registered Linux user #366862 This message was sent from a Microsoft-Free 750MHz Athlon system running SuSE Linux 9.1 (Kernal 2.6.5). "Failure is not an option with Microsoft; it's bundled with the software!"

Jerry Feldman

15:04

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 November 2004 9:57 am, Eric Scott wrote:

...

My useless two cents: My AMD AthlonXP 2000 Box w/ 256MB RAM takes like 30 seconds for a complete reboot w/ 9.2. I think we need to put things into perspective and look at how long it takes to boot the generic kernel, then look at the loading of daemons. Then after the daemons are loaded, how long does it take to load the desktop environment.

What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded. -- Jerry Feldman Partner Technology Access Center (contractor) (PTAC-MA) Hewlett-Packard Co. 550 King Street LKG2a-X2 Littleton, Ma. 01460 (978)506-5243

Eric Scott

15:20

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

...

What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

hear hear! -- Registered Linux user #366862 This message was sent from a Microsoft-Free 750MHz Athlon system running SuSE Linux 9.1 (Kernel 2.6.5), multi-booted with RedHat 8.0 (Kernel 2.4.18; can't get Fedora to work!) and Debian 3.0 (Kernel 2.2.20). "Failure is not an option with Microsoft; it's bundled with the software!" "A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp" -snipped from the signature of Peter Nikolic

David Robertson

15:42

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:20 -0600, Eric Scott wrote:

...

...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

I think most of the comparisons that have been done show there isn't usually much in it. XP boots pretty quickly, despite enabling absolutely everything along the way. I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5. However, I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for a more flexible and secure system! David -- "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance" -Sam Brown

Chadley Wilson

15:48

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

...

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:20 -0600, Eric Scott wrote:

...
...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

I think most of the comparisons that have been done show there isn't usually much in it. XP boots pretty quickly, despite enabling absolutely everything along the way. I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

However, I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for a more flexible and secure system!

David -- "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance" -Sam Brown Suse 9.1 runs slow on anything under 256 MB ram, why would Suse want you to run on less than that? You will find that in future releases you will need more and more CPU and memory to drive the OS. Not to mention faster hard drives etc. The biggest speed drop was in 8.2 and was solved by adding memory, I have to add memory again in 9.1 now running 512, I can't imagine what I will need in

On Thursday 11 November 2004 17:42, David Robertson wrote: 10. My point is: "Get used to upgrading with the releases." My 2c -- Chadley Wilson Redhat Certified Technician Cert Number: 603004708291270 Pinnacle Micro Manufacturers of Proline Computers ==================================== Exercise freedom, Use LINUX =====================================

Anders Johansson

15:58

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 November 2004 16:48, Chadley Wilson wrote:

...

Suse 9.1 runs slow on anything under 256 MB ram

Slight correction: KDE runs slow, not SuSE as such. In my experience, using something like Xfce makes the machine very usable even on 128MB or less. Naturally you'd have to be careful not to start any large, memory hogging servers, but Xfce makes a very nice desktop. And in the new 4.2 beta release, there isn't a whole lot missing compared to KDE or gnome, so it's definitely something to look at. I've used it when installing on, erm, lesser systems and been very satisfied. On one system, KDE went into a swapping frenzy whenever I did anything. On that same machine, Xfce ran like lightning. Blackbox, enlightenment, WindowMaker, AfterStep are others also worth looking at for the same reasons.

Eric Scott

16:54

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 November 2004 09:58, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Thursday 11 November 2004 16:48, Chadley Wilson wrote:

...
Suse 9.1 runs slow on anything under 256 MB ram

Slight correction: KDE runs slow, not SuSE as such. In my experience, using something like Xfce makes the machine very usable even on 128MB or less. Naturally you'd have to be careful not to start any large, memory hogging servers, but Xfce makes a very nice desktop. And in the new 4.2 beta release, there isn't a whole lot missing compared to KDE or gnome, so it's definitely something to look at. I've used it when installing on, erm, lesser systems and been very satisfied. On one system, KDE went into a swapping frenzy whenever I did anything. On that same machine, Xfce ran like lightning.

Blackbox, enlightenment, WindowMaker, AfterStep are others also worth looking at for the same reasons.

Running under 256MB might make things slow on older chips, i.e. celeron, k-6, p-III; but I'm running 9.1 & KDE w/ 128MB on an Athlon@750MHz, and it's downright zippy. The only thing that slows my down is my 5400RPM HD :-P. Cheers, SigmaChi -- Registered Linux user #366862 This message was sent from a Microsoft-Free 750MHz Athlon system running SuSE Linux 9.1 (Kernel 2.6.5), multi-booted with RedHat 8.0 (Kernel 2.4.18; can't get Fedora to work!) and Debian 3.0 (Kernel 2.2.20). "Failure is not an option with Microsoft; it's bundled with the software!" "A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp" -snipped from the signature of Peter Nikolic

Eric Scott

16:52

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 November 2004 09:48, Chadley Wilson wrote:

...

On Thursday 11 November 2004 17:42, David Robertson wrote:

...
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:20 -0600, Eric Scott wrote:

...
...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

I think most of the comparisons that have been done show there isn't usually much in it. XP boots pretty quickly, despite enabling absolutely everything along the way. I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

However, I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for a more flexible and secure system!

David

I think that alot of it has to do with what software components are including in the distro. I mean, on my ol' Mac I have a really old Mac OS dual-booted with Linux. The Mac OS can boot up MUCH faster than Linux, but Linux loads things like sendmail, samba, nfs, webmin, and all sorts of things that I only use every now and then, but that don't even exist on the Mac OS. Forgive the Mac illistration, but I think the same applies to Windows. Sure, it's got everything windowsy... workgroup/domain network connections, windows udate, windows messenger, addware, and all the other things that are next to impossible to keep windows from loading on boot. Linux, on the otherhand, is spending all its time loading SMTP servers, NFS, Webmin, and other things that are enabled by default, weather or not you use them. My point? I think Linux takes longer because it's loading more... because it has more available to load. If your Mandrake 8.2 box enables apache by default on a fresh install, for example, wouldn't it still load alot faster than a brand-new install of Windows 2000 Server, which enables IIS by default? Sorry, had to get a little defensive on my Linux-side there ;-). Cheers, SigmaChi -- Registered Linux user #366862 This message was sent from a Microsoft-Free 750MHz Athlon system running SuSE Linux 9.1 (Kernel 2.6.5), multi-booted with RedHat 8.0 (Kernel 2.4.18; can't get Fedora to work!) and Debian 3.0 (Kernel 2.2.20). "Failure is not an option with Microsoft; it's bundled with the software!" "A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp" -snipped from the signature of Peter Nikolic

Lester Caine

16:45

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

David Robertson wrote:

...

...
...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

I think most of the comparisons that have been done show there isn't usually much in it. XP boots pretty quickly, despite enabling absolutely everything along the way. I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

I'm still stuck with windows machines, and the problem is not the 'boot' time, but the time from a 'visible' desktop' to a 'usable' desktop. Just pushing the display up earlier affects perceptions but not times. KDE takes a little while to give the start bar functions, but Windows always seems a lot slower to the same point. I've given up on XP - W2k is much faster to 'usable' and mush faster to close - very important on a laptop!

...

However, I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for a more flexible and secure system!

I don't think you actually do have to wait any longer ;) -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Don Parris

19:02

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thursday 11 November 2004 10:42, David Robertson wrote:

...

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:20 -0600, Eric Scott wrote:

...
...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

I think most of the comparisons that have been done show there isn't usually much in it. XP boots pretty quickly, despite enabling absolutely everything along the way. I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

However, I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for a more flexible and secure system!

But my old P-II/350 MHz box running SuSE 8.0 Pro was only 10 secs slower than the 1.8 GHz Pentium box @ work. To be fair, the latter had to connect to a large network, but I tested the boot time at night when no users were on the system. I didn't make any changes in the services I'm running - still Apache, MySQL. O.k., I have added the kernel-based nfs server, which is what Yast gives you. I suspect my P-II w/SUSE 8.0 w/192 MB RAM (if it were still running) would keep pace with this AMD 1.3 GHz box w/256 MB RAM. I can almost make a pot of coffee while this box boots. Don't ask about the mobo, as I have no idea what brand it is. I do wish the manufacturers would take a little pride in their work and label it. Maybe they don't want me to call them when/if it fries. :) I'm not a speed freak, so it doesn't necessarily bother me much anyway. Still, it would be nice to brag that this box can keep up with the 3 GHz box that we now have @ work w/WinXP. As for Windoze booting quickly, I've always thought it was slow. But, hey, if you make a processor fast enough, even WinXP runs at a decent pace. Naturally, MS' latest release of Office is another effort on their part to drive CPU speed advances. ;) Understand, I love SUSE. I just thought I would get more speed out of it. Guess I'll have to learn to compile a custom kernel. -- DC Parris GNU Evangelist http://matheteuo.org/ http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/ "Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime anywhere!"

jfweber＠bellsouth.net

20:02

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

*** Reply to message from David Robertson on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:42:17 +0300 One more candle and a trip around the Sun***

...

I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

I supose one could check to see what is being loaded, and is it something you actually use? For instance , I don't have apache load or run on my test box, because it doesn't need it for anything.. Someone mentioned several things which start on boot up that he only uses rarely. Perhaps one could stop those items from starting automagically and start them only when you need them. That has to speed stuff up. Besides, it is always better to not have a service running if you don't use it then to risk having something creep up on you because you don't use a service or program , so you don't pay attention to those security warnings and don't bother to patch em up. Turn the stuff off. And Xfce is a really nice tiny desktop, and one of the favoured ones by the folks who put linux on a cf card or sd card, or pen drive or floppy .... Those little gems boot farely quickly , too. <G> I think I am correct ; that you can start most services manually if you need them rarely. -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit

David Robertson

20:40

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 15:02 -0500, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

...

*** Reply to message from David Robertson on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:42:17 +0300 One more candle and a trip around the Sun***

...
I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

I supose one could check to see what is being loaded, and is it something you actually use?

That was part of my point - I disable everything I don't use in Linux. Its not so easy to do that in XP, so a lot of unnecessary stuff gets loaded/started, but its still faster. I don't use KDE because it is just too slow: I prefer Gnome or Windowmaker - at least we have a choice of desktops. I'm certainly no lover of MS but I think it is important that we don't make invalid criticisms: there's enough of that coming the other way. David -- "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance" -Sam Brown

Edulix

22:25

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

El Jueves, 11 de Noviembre de 2004 21:40, David Robertson escribió:

...

...
...
I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

I supose one could check to see what is being loaded, and is it something you actually use?

That was part of my point - I disable everything I don't use in Linux. Its not so easy to do that in XP, so a lot of unnecessary stuff gets loaded/started, but its still faster. I don't use KDE because it is just too slow: I prefer Gnome or Windowmaker - at least we have a choice of desktops. I'm certainly no lover of MS but I think it is important that we don't make invalid criticisms: there's enough of that coming the other way.

I've read almost all of this thread. The discussion about booting, starting, and shutting down/rebooting is just too slow, and many peopel have been trying to explain why that happens... I've also been dealing with this. As most of you, I don't mind that my box takes some mins to boot and then nearly 3/5 of a min to load KDE. I'm used to it, even if I start-stop the PC at least once a day! But as most of you, I feel that it there's no valid reason for this to happend. For example, from loading the kernel to showing the KDM, SuSE ussually takes ~ 1 m 50 s. And that happens in every pc I've installed and configured with more or less the same services and the same distro-version... More or less the same amount of time ussually takes VidaLinux to boot from loading the kernel to GDM with everything started, a (Gentoo linux distro + prebuilt packages + RedHat Graphical installer). Guess what ? I managed to reduce that time to an amazing amount of time of 22 seconds, less than Windows XP in the same machine! Why I did that in Gentoo and not in SuSE? Simply because Gentoo's bootscripts are much easier to manage in that aspect. The trick is to hack everything so to start services in parallel as much as possible, launch them soon as possible, and optimize as much as possible! And I can tell you it wasn't a big and difficult task at all :-). Here You can see a list of tricks: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=197983 http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/7594 http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-boot.html?ca=dgr-lnxw0... http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=131142 http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=191399 Last link is in spanish. And most of the things are gentoo-only, but at least you can see what's all about :-). Anyway, even using all the tricks, KDE still would likely take a lot to load if you don't use software suspend 2! But even with that, if you don't want to enter automatically with your user by default, that's not even a solution... Cheers, Edulix.

James Knott

21:29

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

David Robertson wrote:

...

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:20 -0600, Eric Scott wrote:

...
...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

I think most of the comparisons that have been done show there isn't usually much in it. XP boots pretty quickly, despite enabling absolutely everything along the way. I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

However, I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for a more flexible and secure system!

David

In my experience with XP, the desktop isn't usable, until quite some time after it "finishes booting".

Thom Nuzum

21:42

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

This may sound stupid, but why not just leave the box on. There are plenty of power save features built in and screensaver options for just this: unless it's a fire hazard or noise maker. On Thursday 11 November 2004 16:29, James Knott wrote:

...

David Robertson wrote:

...
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:20 -0600, Eric Scott wrote:

...
...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

I think most of the comparisons that have been done show there isn't usually much in it. XP boots pretty quickly, despite enabling absolutely everything along the way. I don't run Windows at all now, but on any machine I've had both XP and Linux installed, Linux is slower to boot to a full runlevel 5.

However, I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for a more flexible and secure system!

David

In my experience with XP, the desktop isn't usable, until quite some time after it "finishes booting".

-- ___ _ __ ||_|/ \|\/| _|_|_ _ ._ _ / \_|_ _ ._ _| _._|_ _. _ _ ._ _ || |\_/| | |_| |(_)| | || (|/ |_(/_| |(_|(_| |_(_|o(_(_)| | | \__

James Knott

21:52

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

Thom Nuzum wrote:

...

This may sound stupid, but why not just leave the box on. There are plenty of power save features built in and screensaver options for just this: unless it's a fire hazard or noise maker.

The computer that I have XP (& SuSE 9.1) on, is a notebook, which I don't leave on. Also, many other times, it's someone else's computer, which I have no control over, in that regard. I do leave my desktop systems up, but none of them run XP. One can boot Windows 98, but it's normally running Linux 24/7. The OS/2 system gets booted & shut down as necessary.

Chris Geske

15:48

New subject: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

I have SuSE 9.2 and WinXP on a dual boot Dell Inspiron 9100. SuSE takes about 5 times longer to boot and come to a settled desktop. I'm sure if i customized the kernel, they would be on par. Also, I'm not impressed with SuSE's wireless capabilities, what a PITA! -- Chris Geske - LIMS Manager Northern Lake Service, Inc. lims@newnorth.net

...

-----Original Message----- From: Eric Scott [mailto:scottclansman@cwazy.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:21 AM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 is really slow

...
What I would like to see is a comparison to a Windows XP system on the same box similarly configured from start to when all the tray thingies are fully loaded.

hear hear! -- Registered Linux user #366862

7107

Age (days ago)

7110

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

32 comments

18 participants

participants (18)

Anders Johansson
Carlos E. R.
Chadley Wilson
Chris Geske
David Robertson
Deep Thinker
Don Parris
Edulix
Eric Scott
James Knott
Jerry Feldman
jfweber＠bellsouth.net
Lester Caine
peter Nikolic
Stephen Boulet
Steve
Steve Kratz
Thom Nuzum

9.2 is really slow

Steve

Steve Kratz

Steve

Carlos E. R.

Steve

Carlos E. R.

Steve

Carlos E. R.

Steve

peter Nikolic

Don Parris

Deep Thinker

Stephen Boulet

peter Nikolic

jfweber＠bellsouth.net

peter Nikolic

Eric Scott

Jerry Feldman

Eric Scott

David Robertson

Chadley Wilson

Anders Johansson

Eric Scott

Eric Scott

Lester Caine

Don Parris

jfweber＠bellsouth.net

David Robertson

Edulix

James Knott

Thom Nuzum

James Knott

Chris Geske

tags

participants (18)