q u a s i wrote :
What is the distribution ?
RHL9
What machine config ? More importantly do you have anything running in the background ? Excessive logging ? You have some inefficient program running in the background which updates a few KB file on disk every few seconds ? There could be many reasons. Your problem seems not to be a generally observed phenomenon.
P4@1.6GHz, 128MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 256mb Swap, default windowmanager, KDE as desktop.
The installation is the default desktop installation, with no customisation whatsoever. This system is a test system, that i installed to test this very fact. I have seen this happen on every linux box that I have come across, *regardless of m/c configuration*. One of my buddies commented to me once, and i quote - "The main reason why Linux is not very popular in cybercafe's is because apps like browsers & office applications take too long to open." And hence this discussion thread.
Try not running XWindows and then see if the disk io continues.
If you have read my first post regarding this matter i specifically mentioned that this is obsererved *only in GUI mode*.
cheerio veejay
_________________________________________________________________ Play the prediction game on MEZ. Win Sehwags autographed T-shirts. http://go.msnserver.com/IN/41491.asp Predict and win on myenjoyzone.com.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, I. R. Veejay spake thusly:
The installation is the default desktop installation, with no customisation whatsoever. This system is a test system, that i installed to test this very fact. I have seen this happen on every linux box that I have come across, *regardless of m/c configuration*.
That is unfortunate. It dont happen to my machines.
One of my buddies commented to me once, and i quote - "The main reason why Linux is not very popular in cybercafe's is because apps like browsers & office applications take too long to open." And hence this discussion thread.
This is different. "Why does Linux access the HDD so much" is the thread. Open/Star office are bloated applications and they are extremely resource hungry. They are not at all the "typical" Unix/Linux application but rather a compatibility thing for people used to M$ crap. Mozilla takes some time to load but afterwards it is very fast. If you need a faster browser try galeon. But if your machine is idle then access to the HDD should be nominal.
If you plan to run GUI apps then 256Mb RAM recommended at the least.
BTW, a "typical" Unix/Linux app like LaTeX can help you get typesetting quality work done on a 386 with 8Mb RAM. I have done this. This is just an example. No need to blame the system if we cannot optimise for our use. GNU/Linux systems are extremely flexible because of the tremendous choice we have -- and for the same reason, sometimes, non-optimised.
Try not running XWindows and then see if the disk io continues.
If you have read my first post regarding this matter i specifically mentioned that this is obsererved *only in GUI mode*.
... and I did say "wading in late"
cheerio veejay
On 2004.01.23 10:16 q u a s i wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, I. R. Veejay spake thusly:
The installation is the default desktop installation, with no customisation whatsoever. This system is a test system, that i installed to test this very fact. I have seen this happen on every linux box that I have come across, *regardless of m/c configuration*.
[snip]
Hey,
Guys....chill out. We have a case of "usual gnu/linux cribbing" and i agree with you on the same.
Veejay, lets not get all too hyper about this and try and figure out whats good for you. You need to learn to optimise your configuration simply cause of the rest of the world is able to get along with an Operating System which is growing at 200% in usage each year probably you and i have something to leanr towards making our experience a little bit more pleasureable.
Check out the following.....
Issue the following command when the machine is completely booted into the GUI.."top -d 5" and copy paste for us the resource usage. Issue the following commands and tell us the service running on your machine.."ps eaxf" and "netstat -l -n" Red Hat is a stupid Distribution which comes with All Services turned on by default and hence un-needed services consume a whole lot of cpu cycles. Turn off what you don't need Increase your swap probably necessitating a re-install and have it pushed up to 1GB. Don't use Gnome and instead use Windowmaker/Icewm.
Inspite of this all if you wanna crib we will be sorry that we tried helping you out in the first place. Dear Vijay...all of us here has learned the hard way. So try to give it time and do your homework well. Take positive criticism and work towards settings things right.
PN: My personal laptops and Desktops are running Gnu/Linux unformatted for years. My personal laptop is a PII, 128MB RAM, and runs Gnome 2.2 with Open Office and Mozilla too...;). It's upto you to make it work.
Please put an end to this thread here.
Trevor
That is unfortunate. It dont happen to my machines.
Try not running XWindows and then see if the disk io continues.
If you have read my first post regarding this matter i specifically mentioned that this is obsererved *only in GUI mode*.
... and I did say "wading in late"
cheerio veejay
----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Warren" trevor.w@pvision.biz To: "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Cc: "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] RE: Why does Linux access the HDD so much?
Inspite of this all if you wanna crib we will be sorry that we tried helping you out in the first place. Dear Vijay...all of us here has learned the hard way. So try to give it time and do your homework well. Take positive criticism and work towards settings things right.
PN: My personal laptops and Desktops are running Gnu/Linux unformatted for years. My personal laptop is a PII, 128MB RAM, and runs Gnome 2.2 with Open Office and Mozilla too...;). It's upto you to make it work.
Please put an end to this thread here.Trevor
Dont put an end to this thread. While the messages were a little confused, there is an important fact in it.
Vijay is talking about a problem (whether actual or percieved) that GUI under Linux is slow / bulky /inefficient and that this is the reason why more people (specifically cyber cafes) are not moving to Linux as the OS. We need to help him understand this problem and make sure that the message goes accoss to other people also so that they can refute the point in future (even if they are not experts on Linux).
Perhaps someone can summarise the points you have made. They are very valid. a. Increase Swap b. Stop services that are not required c. Get More RAM (since lower ram = more swap file usage = slower / inefficient performance) d. Recomend use of less resource hungary software (galeon instead of mozilla) e. Do not fully shut off software that you are going to use again and again (eg, minimise mozilla instead of closing it when you finish looking at a webpage)
An additional point I guess we can also make here is that in MS Windows XP also, most software takes time to open. Outlook express takes more than 20 seconds (and massive HDD Access) to open and MSOffice XP is much worse. We can not compare a PC running Win98 to RedHat9. That comparison does not make sense.
On the other hand, many of the good software in Linux is also not as efficient as they are in MS Windows. A case in point is Mozilla its self. I use Mozilla extensively on MS Windows, it has an option / feature which allows me to set that will keep the software open in background (in system tray) so that when I use it again, it starts up in less than 5 seconds. In the meanwhile it is using less than 1.25mb of ram, which I can afford, and about 15mb of swap file (which I dont mind). I could not locate the same feature in the Linux version of Mozilla. Before using that feature, it took mozilla more than 30 seconds to open every time I started it.
I would still say, keep this thread alive, or may be change it to "How to Make Linux look more efficient" ?
(BTW, I havent checked the website to see if there is a note or a how-to on this. If so, my appologies)
regards Saswata
Sometime Today, Saswata Banerjee & Associates assembled some asciibets to say:
Perhaps someone can summarise the points you have made. They are very valid. a. Increase Swap
Won't help. Swap resides on the hard disk. So it won't *reduce* hard disk usage.
b. Stop services that are not required
valid
c. Get More RAM (since lower ram = more swap file usage = slower / inefficient performance)
most valid
d. Recomend use of less resource hungary software (galeon instead of mozilla)
firebird seems to be even less resource hungry, and is the most standards compliant browser ever.
e. Do not fully shut off software that you are going to use again and again (eg, minimise mozilla instead of closing it when you finish looking at a webpage)
I think there's a quickstart feature somewhere, though as you mentioned, I couldn't find it. All the same, try Firebird, both on windows and on linux. Reduce the cache size though. The default is 50MB. Set it to 1MB for faster load times.
Hi All,
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 08:32, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
Vijay is talking about a problem (whether actual or percieved) that GUI under Linux is slow / bulky /inefficient and that this is the reason why more people (specifically cyber cafes) are not moving to Linux as the OS. We need to help him understand this problem and make sure that the message goes accoss to other people also so that they can refute the point in future (even if they are not experts on Linux).
Perhaps someone can summarise the points you have made. They are very valid. a. Increase Swap b. Stop services that are not required c. Get More RAM (since lower ram = more swap file usage = slower / inefficient performance) d. Recomend use of less resource hungary software (galeon instead of mozilla) e. Do not fully shut off software that you are going to use again and again (eg, minimise mozilla instead of closing it when you finish looking at a webpage)
On the other hand, many of the good software in Linux is also not as efficient as they are in MS Windows. A case in point is Mozilla its self. I use Mozilla extensively on MS Windows, it has an option / feature which allows me to set that will keep the software open in background (in system tray) so that when I use it again, it starts up in less than 5 seconds. In the meanwhile it is using less than 1.25mb of ram, which I can afford, and about 15mb of swap file (which I dont mind). I could not locate the same feature in the Linux version of Mozilla. Before using that feature, it took mozilla more than 30 seconds to open every time I started it.
From man pages of chmod
--Quote-- STICKY FILES On older Unix systems, the sticky bit caused executable files to be hoarded in swap space. This feature is not useful on modern VM systems, and the Linux kernel ignores the sticky bit on files. Other kernels may use the sticky bit on files for system-defined purposes.On some systems, only the superuser can set the sticky bit on files ----
That "was" one way of starting an app fast.
However, on second thought, we can send a suggestion to Mozilla team about having Mozilla in two parts - Rendering engine and UI. The engine always runs as a server in background and UI connects to engine for page rendering.
That way an app can start "fast".
I would still say, keep this thread alive, or may be change it to "How to Make Linux look more efficient" ?
Good idea... Let people keep adding tips for various performance enhacements for GNU/Linux.
HTH With regards,
Dineshbhai kemcho...;)
On 2004.01.24 12:01 Dinesh Shah wrote:
However, on second thought, we can send a suggestion to Mozilla team about having Mozilla in two parts - Rendering engine and UI. The engine always runs as a server in background and UI connects to engine for page rendering.
[snip]
Dineshji, mozilla server you with a backend engine which distinguishes itself from the UI. You can use the gecko engine and build your own applications with customised UI.
Mozilla's a bloat, a feature rich bloat...;)
Trevor
That way an app can start "fast".
--Dinesh Shah :-) Dinesh@ShahMicro.com Shah Micro System +91-98213-11906 +91-22-56919423
Hi Trevor,
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 15:40, Trevor Warren wrote:
Dineshbhai kemcho...;)
I am fine thx...
On 2004.01.24 12:01 Dinesh Shah wrote:
However, on second thought, we can send a suggestion to Mozilla team about having Mozilla in two parts - Rendering engine and UI. The engine always runs as a server in background and UI connects to engine for page rendering.
[snip]
Dineshji, mozilla server you with a backend engine which distinguishes itself from the UI. You can use the gecko engine and build your own applications with customised UI.
does Mozilla by default come in two parts? If yes, sysadmin can put engine in the startup scripts and the user will get feel of "instant" start of the app, when s/he starts the UI.
Mozilla's a bloat, a feature rich bloat...;)
Well... Something is better then nothing... Still better then other bloatware. :-)
With regards,
Sometime Today, Dinesh Shah assembled some asciibets to say:
Mozilla's a bloat, a feature rich bloat...;)
Well... Something is better then nothing... Still better then other bloatware. :-)
But why are you bringing nothing into the picture? There are already better alternatives. Something may be better than nothing, but there are other things that are better than that something.
It is that attitude of settling for whatever is available that plagues users of other systems. Linux users don't settle, they go out and make things better... oh wait, that's Philips (not me).
-
Dinesh Shah -
I R Veejay -
Philip S Tellis -
q u a s i -
Saswata Banerjee & Associates -
Trevor Warren