Re: [SLE] Has The performance been forgotten?
Thank you for your notice, I want to add some comments: 1- My Linux setup and boot are on default settings (In fact, I am not so foolish to add unused services to the boot progress!) 2- In Windows OSs, I've installed a few programs and updates, but I accept that its boot time becomes slow and slower when you install more programs, though, the worsts are those who add startup items. 3- In both Linuces, I've installed nVIDIA binary driver (61.06) that works well, better than Windows drivers; But this driver only affects 3d games, no considerable difference in other programs. 4- When I speak about the applications, I mean the time for invoke them, not the time for doing special tasks inside. 5- I became tired in trying install Gnome 2.6 on both SuSE 9.1 and RedHat 9.0; Generally, installed RPM packages prevent the detection of newer versions installed from source code; In addition, removing the old rpm ruins the system... Gnome 2.8?! I see only 2.6 in the site! 6- My intention is not hiding the great advantages of linux systems, such as: no need for restart, being open-source and many more; I wish its desktop would be faster. 7- The file system used here is ext3. 8- How much features do you think SuSE have that is worth putting your hand under your chin for several seconds after any click? 9- Is Mandrake Linux better in performance? Bahram Alinezhad (alineziad@yahoo.com), Tehran, Iran. _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
Thank you for your notice, I want to add some comments:
1- My Linux setup and boot are on default settings (In fact, I am not so foolish to add unused services to the boot progress!)
2- In Windows OSs, I've installed a few programs and updates, but I accept that its boot time becomes slow and slower when you install more programs, though, the worsts are those who add startup items.
3- In both Linuces, I've installed nVIDIA binary driver (61.06) that works well, better than Windows drivers; But this driver only affects 3d games, no considerable difference in other programs.
4- When I speak about the applications, I mean the time for invoke them, not the time for doing special tasks inside.
5- I became tired in trying install Gnome 2.6 on both SuSE 9.1 and RedHat 9.0; Generally, installed RPM packages prevent the detection of newer versions installed from source code; In addition, removing the old rpm ruins the system... Gnome 2.8?! I see only 2.6 in the site!
6- My intention is not hiding the great advantages of linux systems, such as: no need for restart, being open-source and many more; I wish its desktop would be faster.
7- The file system used here is ext3. Preemptible kernels are getting there as far as responsiveness is concerned, ext3 is slow compared to reiserfs and reiser4 will dramatically increase that speed, my next HD will definitely be
SuSE has traditionally not paid attention to Gnome, so I expect when 9.2 arrives, we'll only get Gnome 2.6 with it, grudgingly. For that reason, I don't try to upgrade gnome in SuSE. Building gnome from sources is a full time job, even with garnome I've never had a successful build as every version has different problems for different people. I used to build KDE from sources very easily, but for some time the SuSE binaries have been sound and where needed upgrading apps is easy. The big problem with gnome is that if you install today and try an updated app tomorrow, you'll see many dependency problems, fix those and you break other apps. formatted with reiserfs 4.
8- How much features do you think SuSE have that is worth putting your hand under your chin for several seconds after any click?
9- Is Mandrake Linux better in performance?
SuSE is made pretty generic for x86 hardware, so is not optimised for any particular CPU, except for the kernels. I can't say Mandrake is dramatically or very noticeably faster than SuSE. Gentoo is faster as it is optimised for the hardware it's running on, though a recent build, starting at stage 1 on an Athlon 700 256M box took about 54 hours to build everything - only about 1 hour max keyboard time.
Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====
Please do not crosspost On 01/10/04 10:14 AM, Bahram Alinezhad <alineziad@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thank you for your notice, I want to add some comments:
1- My Linux setup and boot are on default settings (In fact, I am not so foolish to add unused services to the boot progress!)
So in other words your linux installation is running services it doesnt need if its acting as a desktop. I'd also imagine its still running hardware scan at boot.
2- In Windows OSs, I've installed a few programs and updates, but I accept that its boot time becomes slow and slower when you install more programs, though, the worsts are those who add startup items.
So in other words it isnt fully patched, firewalled and has antivirus running. Let alone have useful programs installed such as an office suite, a decent webbrowser and so on.
3- In both Linuces, I've installed nVIDIA binary driver (61.06) that works well, better than Windows drivers; But this driver only affects 3d games, no considerable difference in other programs.
It does however contaminiate the kernel, and the module is loaded anyway at boot.
4- When I speak about the applications, I mean the time for invoke them, not the time for doing special tasks inside.
Hitting the konsole icon on kooldock takes it about 2 seconds to lauch on my laptop. At the time it was running at 800Mhz and had 84 tasks running when I ran top on it.
5- I became tired in trying install Gnome 2.6 on both SuSE 9.1 and RedHat 9.0; Generally, installed RPM packages prevent the detection of newer versions installed from source code; In addition, removing the old rpm ruins the system... Gnome 2.8?! I see only 2.6 in the site!
Suse 9.1 ships with Gnome 2.4, as does RH9. Suse does not provide 2.6 rpms, but they do host ones built by a 3rd party but do not support or recommend them. The 2.8 rpms have just been built by James Ogley on his rather spiffy ew laptop according to his blog and are available via apt.
6- My intention is not hiding the great advantages of linux systems, such as: no need for restart, being open-source and many more; I wish its desktop would be faster.
My desktop (usually xfce4, but today kde) is plenty fast for me. If its not for you, then use something else.
7- The file system used here is ext3.
What filesystem are you using fro Xp? 98 will be fat32 - a non journaled fs, which will be faster but at the cost of data integrity.
8- How much features do you think SuSE have that is worth putting your hand under your chin for several seconds after any click?
I dont have to, even on my old 500Mhz box.
9- Is Mandrake Linux better in performance?
Try a stage 2 gentoo install, it'll optimise for your system, and given your badwidth and cpu keep you busy untill at least march. Regards, Ben
- In Windows, when the desktop appears, may be some startup items still running; In SuSE 9.1 you see similar situation, at least for "kmix" and "hardware" icons in the system tray! also, a message asking you about changing your monitor settings cannot be eliminated. - With all your explanation, can SuSE 9.1 be 6 times slower than WinXP? (See the table again.) - We start a criticism with the vision that it will be supported by some other members and may be considered in future versions; Once I feel that its users are already satisfied with it, I'll keep my opinion for myself and leave the story to its destiny! In return to your request, I require you ignore the thread if you are so intolerant. Thank you for your notice, Bahram. -------------------------------- "BandiPat" wrote: -------------------------------- Bahram, I'll just make a few comments about this and ask that you move it to the OT list please. Not really solving SuSE problems talking about things you don't seem to understand. Of if you do understand them better, you are just trolling to create a stir. Either way, move this to OT please. First of all, you are not comparing apples to apples and maybe if you understood what you were talking about more, you could do so or if you do, but decided not to point out the facts, you are trying to be deceptive as well. It's certainly another of those deceptive practices MS does to draw folks in or create useless discussions such as this. :o) 1. Windows, no matter what flavor, preloads most of what it needs to run at bootup into ram, therefore appearing to load things faster. Windows bootup time in itself is decieving, since it is programed to load the windows first then process the init stuff later. That's why even after you see the desktop, it's not ready to use for several seconds later. If you were to compare "actual" times, you would see Windows doesn't fully load for several seconds, even minutes before becoming fully usable. Same thing with other programs, Windows loads the windows first, the rest later thus because the windows open first, you get the "feeling" they're loading faster. The actual load times, I think you would find to be comparable to or slower to a good Linux setup. 2. Knoppix feels faster simply because of the fact it's running from a ram disk when started. Try loading something from the cd that's not loaded into ram and tell us what times you get. I suspect you'll find load times to be different from a cd. 3. KDE does things differently, actually not only KDE, in that it loads all the processes first then the window appears. This, of course, makes it appear slower in loading when it's actually equal to or faster than what you see in Windows. Of course, when you see the window appear in Linux apps they are ready for use! This is how KDE operates, no matter what distro it sets on, so MDK, Slackware, Debian are all going to "feel" about the same. Try it yourself by checking the performance settings on Konqueror. Set it to preload just one process into memory! It loads almost instantaneous for me and it's ready to use right then! Unlike Windows, where even preloaded it still has to start other things well after the window appears to be ready to use. Lee __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Friday 01 October 2004 06:20 pm, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
- In Windows, when the desktop appears, may be some startup items still running; In SuSE 9.1 you see similar situation, at least for "kmix" and "hardware" icons in the system tray! also, a message asking you about changing your monitor settings cannot be eliminated.
- With all your explanation, can SuSE 9.1 be 6 times slower than WinXP? (See the table again.)
- We start a criticism with the vision that it will be supported by some other members and may be considered in future versions; Once I feel that its users are already satisfied with it, I'll keep my opinion for myself and leave the story to its destiny! In return to your request, I require you ignore the thread if you are so intolerant.
Thank you for your notice, Bahram.
========= The only thing I have witnessed being slow thus far is you in comprehending what you are talking about and continuing to extend this useless comparison on this list! Only intolerant of your lack of knowledge and williness to investigate, plus that you seem not to understand the purpose of this list and why we have the Off Topic list. This is a subject for the OT list if you intend on pursuing it further. Thanks, Lee -- --- KMail v1.7 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.1 --- Registered Linux User #225206 Those Who Dance Are Considered Insane, by Those Who Cannot Hear the Music!
- In Windows, when the desktop appears, may be some startup items still running; In SuSE 9.1 you see similar situation, at least for "kmix" and "hardware" icons in the system tray! also, a message asking you about changing your monitor settings cannot be eliminated.
Actually, if you go into the "sax" setup tool, and set the size (get out your ruler and measure), in mm, it will stop prompting for the setting -- And, in my experience, the display looks much better after that (fonts show up the "right" size, etc.)
On Friday 01 October 2004 05:14 am, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
Thank you for your notice, I want to add some comments:
1- My Linux setup and boot are on default settings (In fact, I am not so foolish to add unused services to the boot progress!)
2- In Windows OSs, I've installed a few programs and updates, but I accept that its boot time becomes slow and slower when you install more programs, though, the worsts are those who add startup items. [...] 6- My intention is not hiding the great advantages of linux systems, such as: no need for restart, being open-source and many more; I wish its desktop would be faster.
7- The file system used here is ext3.
8- How much features do you think SuSE have that is worth putting your hand under your chin for several seconds after any click?
9- Is Mandrake Linux better in performance?
Bahram Alinezhad (alineziad@yahoo.com), Tehran, Iran.
Bahram, I'll just make a few comments about this and ask that you move it to the OT list please. Not really solving SuSE problems talking about things you don't seem to understand. Of if you do understand them better, you are just trolling to create a stir. Either way, move this to OT please. First of all, you are not comparing apples to apples and maybe if you understood what you were talking about more, you could do so or if you do, but decided not to point out the facts, you are trying to be deceptive as well. It's certainly another of those deceptive practices MS does to draw folks in or create useless discussions such as this. :o) 1. Windows, no matter what flavor, preloads most of what it needs to run at bootup into ram, therefore appearing to load things faster. Windows bootup time in itself is decieving, since it is programed to load the windows first then process the init stuff later. That's why even after you see the desktop, it's not ready to use for several seconds later. If you were to compare "actual" times, you would see Windows doesn't fully load for several seconds, even minutes before becoming fully usable. Same thing with other programs, Windows loads the windows first, the rest later thus because the windows open first, you get the "feeling" they're loading faster. The actual load times, I think you would find to be comparable to or slower to a good Linux setup. 2. Knoppix feels faster simply because of the fact it's running from a ram disk when started. Try loading something from the cd that's not loaded into ram and tell us what times you get. I suspect you'll find load times to be different from a cd. 3. KDE does things differently, actually not only KDE, in that it loads all the processes first then the window appears. This, of course, makes it appear slower in loading when it's actually equal to or faster than what you see in Windows. Of course, when you see the window appear in Linux apps they are ready for use! This is how KDE operates, no matter what distro it sets on, so MDK, Slackware, Debian are all going to "feel" about the same. Try it yourself by checking the performance settings on Konqueror. Set it to preload just one process into memory! It loads almost instantaneous for me and it's ready to use right then! Unlike Windows, where even preloaded it still has to start other things well after the window appears to be ready to use. Lee -- --- KMail v1.7 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.1 --- Registered Linux User #225206 Those Who Dance Are Considered Insane, by Those Who Cannot Hear the Music!
At 10.03 01/10/04 -0400, you wrote:
2. Knoppix feels faster simply because of the fact it's running from a ram disk when started. Try loading something from the cd that's not loaded into ram and tell us what times you get. I suspect you'll find load times to be different from a cd.
Repeating the launch of the same application should equal the conditions, since with plenty of RAM everything should be cached. This is how I did my timings. BTW I have been using Suse since 6.1 and this KDE performance drop came from 8.1 to 9.1 If what you say is true, it means KDE can't be used on a somewhat older (400 MHz) PC. The delay is really annoying. Next week I'll try a Mandrake install just to check.
At 04:54 PM 10/1/2004 +0200, alberto-g@inventati.org wrote:
At 10.03 01/10/04 -0400, you wrote:
/snip/ BTW I have been using Suse since 6.1 and this KDE performance drop came from 8.1 to 9.1 If what you say is true, it means KDE can't be used on a somewhat older (400 MHz) PC. The delay is really annoying. /snip/ I tried to run KDE (SuSE 8.1) on a 160 MHz machine with a reasonable amount of RAM, but it was hopeless. However, KDE (SuSE 9.1) is quite usable on a 2.4 GHz machine with 1.5 G RAM.
--doug
On Friday 01 October 2004 16:54, alberto-g@inventati.org wrote:
BTW I have been using Suse since 6.1 and this KDE performance drop came from 8.1 to 9.1
You might want to turn off some of the new eye candy. It takes up quite a bit of processing power. KDE on SuSE 9.1 runs smoothly on my Athlon 1800 XP with 512 MB ram, all eye candy on. Regards, Pieter Hulshoff
My friend, If we continue to defend disadvantages with prejudice or dogma, we'll have never improvements. 1- Doesn't Windows scan for new hardwares? 2- Is any antivirus working inside SuSE to slow down it?!! Or there may be a firewall that makes applications run late! 3- Isn't the NTFS journal-based fs? In the other hand, file-copy processes in linux show that the hard-drive and file-system are working well. Thank you for your notice, Bahram. -------------------------------- "Ben Higginbottom" wrote: -------------------------------- 1- So in other words your linux installation is running services it doesnt need if its acting as a desktop. I'd also imagine its still running hardware scan at boot. 2- So in other words it isnt fully patched, firewalled and has antivirus running. Let alone have useful programs installed such as an office suite, a decent webbrowser and so on. 3- It does however contaminiate the kernel, and the module is loaded anyway at boot. 4- Hitting the konsole icon on kooldock takes it about 2 seconds to lauch on my laptop. At the time it was running at 800Mhz and had 84 tasks running when I ran top on it. 5- Suse 9.1 ships with Gnome 2.4, as does RH9. Suse does not provide 2.6 rpms, but they do host ones built by a 3rd party but do not support or recommend them. The 2.8 rpms have just been built by James Ogley on his rather spiffy ew laptop according to his blog and are available via apt. 6- My desktop (usually xfce4, but today kde) is plenty fast for me. If its not for you, then use something else. 7- What filesystem are you using fro Xp? 98 will be fat32 - a non journaled fs, which will be faster but at the cost of data integrity. 8- I dont have to, even on my old 500Mhz box. 9-Try a stage 2 gentoo install, it'll optimise for your system, and given your badwidth and cpu keep you busy untill at least march. Regards, Ben _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
On Saturday 02 October 2004 00:20, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
If we continue to defend disadvantages with prejudice or dogma, we'll have never improvements.
I agree. :) Would you mind doing a ps aux of your system, and sending us the output? That'll give us at least a bit of an idea of the services being started when you boot. You may be right though: perhaps SuSE by default has more things running than it should. I presume under Windows you have your file/printer sharing on? Regards, Pieter Hulshoff
Hi, On Friday 01 October 2004 15:29, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
On Saturday 02 October 2004 00:20, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
If we continue to defend disadvantages with prejudice or dogma, we'll have never improvements.
I agree. :)
Would you mind doing a ps aux of your system, and sending us the output? That'll give us at least a bit of an idea of the services being started when you boot. You may be right though: perhaps SuSE by default has more things running than it should. I presume under Windows you have your file/printer sharing on?
One thing that occurs to me about SuSE (vs. an unknown set of other distributions that don't do this) is its default use of the "desktop" kernel option. As I understand this option, it increases the rate of some periodic kernel actions such as process scheduling to produce a more responsive feel for interactive operation. I'm not sure I remember this correctly, but I think it produces a ten-fold reduction in the CPU scheduling quantum (or, viewed the other way around, ten times more potential reschedulings per second). For a processor such as Bahram's "Ultra high speed CPU" (an AMD K6 at 550 MHz) that could account for a good bit of overhead when viewed as a percentage of available CPU cycles. Bahram, you can easily experiment with this by rebooting and during the splash-screen countdown, use the keyboard to navigate to the options text field and erase the "desktop" option shown there. (Note, too, that doing this will interrupt the countdown and you'll have to hit return to allow the boot process to continue.)
Regards,
Pieter Hulshoff
Randall Schulz
On Friday 01 October 2004 04:00 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 01 October 2004 15:29, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
On Saturday 02 October 2004 00:20, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
If we continue to defend disadvantages with prejudice or dogma, we'll have never improvements.
I agree. :)
As I understand this option, it increases the rate of some periodic kernel actions such as process scheduling to produce a more responsive feel for interactive operation. I'm not sure I remember this correctly, but I think it produces a ten-fold reduction in the CPU scheduling quantum (or, viewed the other way around, ten times more potential reschedulings per second). For a processor such as Bahram's "Ultra high speed CPU" (an AMD K6 at 550 MHz) that could account for a good bit of overhead when viewed as a percentage of available CPU cycles.
Bahram, you can easily experiment with this by rebooting and during the splash-screen countdown, use the keyboard to navigate to the options text field and erase the "desktop" option shown there. (Note, too, that doing this will interrupt the countdown and you'll have to hit return to allow the boot process to continue.)
Regards,
My machine is not much faster than what Bahram reported and I was wondering why it was so slow lately. Your post reminded me to check, and sure enough DESKTOP was missing from the boot line in /boot/grub/menu.lst I added it back in and the machine is way more responsive. Thanks. From my long ago reading of Linus's emailings on this subject he did not see any advantage to this option on his "ridiculous hardware" (quad processor) but saw much improvement on slower boxes. But my results show everything you do on the desktop to be much snappier with desktop on than with it off. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John, On Friday 01 October 2004 17:59, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 01 October 2004 04:00 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 01 October 2004 15:29, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
On Saturday 02 October 2004 00:20, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
If we continue to defend disadvantages with prejudice or dogma, we'll have never improvements.
I agree. :)
One thing that occurs to me about SuSE (vs. an unknown set of other distributions that don't do this) is its default use of the "desktop" kernel option.
As I understand this option, it increases the rate of some periodic kernel actions such as process scheduling to produce a more responsive feel for interactive operation. I'm not sure I remember this correctly, but I think it produces a ten-fold reduction in the CPU scheduling quantum (or, viewed the other way around, ten times more potential reschedulings per second). For a processor such as Bahram's "Ultra high speed CPU" (an AMD K6 at 550 MHz) that could account for a good bit of overhead when viewed as a percentage of available CPU cycles.
...
Regards,
My machine is not much faster than what Bahram reported and I was wondering why it was so slow lately. Your post reminded me to check, and sure enough DESKTOP was missing from the boot line in /boot/grub/menu.lst I added it back in and the machine is way more responsive. Thanks.
From my long ago reading of Linus's emailings on this subject he did not see any advantage to this option on his "ridiculous hardware" (quad processor) but saw much improvement on slower boxes.
But my results show everything you do on the desktop to be much snappier with desktop on than with it off.
Well, that's great. But my hypothesis was that the "desktop" kernel option would slow a machine down by increasing the kernel scheduler overhead. But if using "desktop" is better for you than than not using it, then great. It's not suprising that things are more responsive, but it doesn't make sense to me that things like boot-up or program launching time would improve. By the way, I have a 3.0 GHz hyperthreading P4, but I removed the "desktop" option. Most of what I do is long-running, CPU-intensive stuff, so I like to squeeze out ever iota of overhead I can. (Well, if that were really true, I'd build a custom kernel with P4 optimizations, but I've so far resisted opening that particular can of worms / pandora's box.) Randall Schulz
On Friday 01 October 2004 05:33 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Well, that's great. But my hypothesis was that the "desktop" kernel option would slow a machine down by increasing the kernel scheduler overhead.
But if using "desktop" is better for you than than not using it, then great. It's not suprising that things are more responsive, but it doesn't make sense to me that things like boot-up or program launching time would improve.
No, I don't think it makes it boot faster. And the desktop speedups only kick in after X is up, and only for those tasks launched from X. According to Linus's email threads (still on Kernel Trap: http://www.kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=603 ) the ht patch really does not complicate scheduling much, and does add some, but not a lot of of overhead. X is not getting more attention, just more frequent attention. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
lördag 02 oktober 2004 02:00 skrev Randall R Schulz:
One thing that occurs to me about SuSE (vs. an unknown set of other distributions that don't do this) is its default use of the "desktop" kernel option.
As I understand this option, it increases the rate of some periodic kernel actions such as process scheduling to produce a more responsive feel for interactive operation. I'm not sure I remember this correctly, but I think it produces a ten-fold reduction in the CPU scheduling quantum (or, viewed the other way around, ten times more potential reschedulings per second). For a processor such as Bahram's "Ultra high speed CPU" (an AMD K6 at 550 MHz) that could account for a good bit of overhead when viewed as a percentage of available CPU cycles.
I think a part of the problem, is that specs about system requirements are way too low. One of my Pentium machines went down, and I had to use an olde K6 400 MHz instead, with 256 Mb of ram. So slow, it's horrible ... and the problem is, memory usage. The newer KDE uses a lot more memory, than it's given credit for. When the specs are given out, it says what 256 Mb of ram? it's almost unusable with that little ... I've got 512Mb with an AMD64 and it's way too slow. The reason, is the following: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 511356 504064 7292 0 25364 125168 -/+ buffers/cache: 353532 157824 Swap: 1895628 447084 1448544 It's using as much memory in swap, as it has memory available. For my system to be nice, it needs 1Gb of memory. Right now, it operates quite nicely, but when it starts there's a lot of disk activity that is the result of swapping taking place, while modules and libraries are being loaded. SuSE should make note of this, and for systems like a K6, actually recommend a lighter desktop. My €0.2 worth.
Op zaterdag 2 oktober 2004 03:38, schreef Örn Hansen:
The newer KDE uses a lot more memory, than it's given credit for. When the specs are given out, it says what 256 Mb of ram? it's almost unusable with that little ... I've got 512Mb with an AMD64 and it's way too slow. The reason, is the following:
I have 350 MHza and 256 Mb for suse-9.1 works ago. It's not snappy but not terrible slow either... -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
Performance is not much of an issue here. I have a PII 350 and booting only takes a minute. for your P4 etc you should be up in ten seconds easily. If thats too long for you perhaps you need less coffee. CWSIV ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
CWSIV, On Friday 01 October 2004 20:00, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
... for your P4 etc you should be up in ten seconds easily. If thats too long for you perhaps you need less coffee.
Reboot time is probably one of the least CPU-sensitive properties of any given system. So much of the time from power-on to login prompt is dominated by the time it takes to get through the BIOS power-on self test (POST) and by disk I/O performance. This becomes even more true if you disable the RAM scanning phase of the BIOS POST. On my system with an Adaptec two-channel SCSI controller, the BIOS phase is itself dominated by time required by that board to do its startup processing and that is in turn highly dependent on the number of hard drives it must probe. Most of this start-up activity is insensitive to the CPU speed.
CWSIV
Randall Schulz
participants (14)
-
alberto-g＠inventati.org -
Bahram Alinezhad -
BandiPat -
Ben Higginbottom -
Carl William Spitzer IV -
Doug McGarrett -
James Knott -
John Andersen -
Pieter Hulshoff -
Randall R Schulz -
Richard Bos -
Sid Boyce -
Steve Kratz -
Örn Hansen