- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] Redhat GUI performance

by Charles R. Anderson

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 02:27:27PM -0400, Karl Hiramoto wrote: karl> Yes, I've heard people claim that using the preemptive scheduler patch karl> on 2.4 it "feels" faster. but results seem anecdotal. karl> karl> Anyone here try that patch? No, but I just found this work I might try: http://www.rexursive.com/software.html -- Charles R. Anderson <cra(a)wpi.edu> / http://angus.ind.wpi.edu/~cra/ PGP Key ID: 49BB5886 Fingerprint: EBA3 A106 7C93 FA07 8E15 3AC2 C367 A0F9 49BB 5886

May 9, 2003

Re: [Wlug] Redhat GUI performance

by Karl Hiramoto

Yes, I've heard people claim that using the preemptive scheduler patch on 2.4 it "feels" faster. but results seem anecdotal. Anyone here try that patch? My guess would be that total CPU throughput decreases, but interactive feeling increases, just what you want on workstation, but not on most servers. And i wouldn't try expermental patches on my servers :) On Fri, 9 May 2003 twg3(a)attbi.com wrote: > Some of this may also be related to the OS scheduler and VM configuration of the > kernel - both of which have been improved in the new 2.5/2.6 kernel. The new > shceduler is preemptive and does a better job of giving interactive processes a > higher priority which makes the box "feel" faster. It is because of this feel, > that I actually run a 2.2 kernel on my desktop/workstation since it feels faster > than a 2.4 kernel (but does not support as much hardware which I can run 2.5 for > if I need to). > > > > I've notice that when going from redhat 7.x to 8 or 9 you need a > > minimum of 256M RAM. with 128M and running gnome there is way too > > much swap space in use. > > > > Gnome and KDE are very bulky GUI's.. twm or blackbox are the slimest > > and fastest. A friend of mine runs gentoo linux and it seems very > > fast compared to redhat on the same box. > > > > type the "free" command at the prompt and see your memory usage also > > "ps aumx" to see process memory usage. > > > > I would reccomend spending the roughly $40 to get a 256M upgrade for > > your box. More RAM almost always helps. The os can keep more things > > in memory and give you a faster response. I use 512M myself. > > > > hope this helps > > > > On Fri, 9 May 2003, Hemstreet, Jeffrey L (Jeffrey) wrote: > > > > > I have a general question about Linux performance... > > > > > > I am running Redhat 8.0 on a Dell 400MHz, 128MB system (OptiPlex) with an > > > 8MB ATI Rage Pro Video card. I have a fairly basic workstation installation, > > with > > > SSHd, ftpd, telnetd, apached, and a couple other services running. Gnome > > seems > > > to take forever to open windows/applications. It can be on the order of 10 > > seconds > > > to a minute for some applications to come up. (Mozilla is one of the worst, > > even > > > to just bring up a local file as the home page for the browser) > > > > > > Is Gnome just a very slow GUI, or is there something that I can do to speed up > > my > > > system?? > > > > > > I know of several (5-6) people who have installed RedHat 7.2...8.0 on Dell and > > Sony > > > systems (all CPU are 866MHz+) with Gnome or KDE and the performance has been > > > very slow in the GUI. Even with a higher end 1.5GHz CPU/512MB RAM system. > > > > > > Is there a Linux distribution that has a standard GUI that is very responsive? > > Is Redhat > > > just too bulky to run quickly, or do I need to download a better GUI for > > Redhat? > > > > > > With Windows2000, this system was very responsive, and the other people I know > > > about are running XP, which is so much faster that they run XP most of the > > time now. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø > > Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> > > Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 > > Cell: 508-517-4819 > > Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ > > Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ > > Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ > > KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ > > AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto > > ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø > > > > The hardest thing is to disguise your feelings when you put a lot of > > relatives on the train for home. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wlug mailing list > > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø The hardest thing is to disguise your feelings when you put a lot of relatives on the train for home.

May 9, 2003

Re: [Wlug] Redhat GUI performance

by twg3＠attbi.com

Some of this may also be related to the OS scheduler and VM configuration of the kernel - both of which have been improved in the new 2.5/2.6 kernel. The new shceduler is preemptive and does a better job of giving interactive processes a higher priority which makes the box "feel" faster. It is because of this feel, that I actually run a 2.2 kernel on my desktop/workstation since it feels faster than a 2.4 kernel (but does not support as much hardware which I can run 2.5 for if I need to). > > I've notice that when going from redhat 7.x to 8 or 9 you need a > minimum of 256M RAM. with 128M and running gnome there is way too > much swap space in use. > > Gnome and KDE are very bulky GUI's.. twm or blackbox are the slimest > and fastest. A friend of mine runs gentoo linux and it seems very > fast compared to redhat on the same box. > > type the "free" command at the prompt and see your memory usage also > "ps aumx" to see process memory usage. > > I would reccomend spending the roughly $40 to get a 256M upgrade for > your box. More RAM almost always helps. The os can keep more things > in memory and give you a faster response. I use 512M myself. > > hope this helps > > On Fri, 9 May 2003, Hemstreet, Jeffrey L (Jeffrey) wrote: > > > I have a general question about Linux performance... > > > > I am running Redhat 8.0 on a Dell 400MHz, 128MB system (OptiPlex) with an > > 8MB ATI Rage Pro Video card. I have a fairly basic workstation installation, > with > > SSHd, ftpd, telnetd, apached, and a couple other services running. Gnome > seems > > to take forever to open windows/applications. It can be on the order of 10 > seconds > > to a minute for some applications to come up. (Mozilla is one of the worst, > even > > to just bring up a local file as the home page for the browser) > > > > Is Gnome just a very slow GUI, or is there something that I can do to speed up > my > > system?? > > > > I know of several (5-6) people who have installed RedHat 7.2...8.0 on Dell and > Sony > > systems (all CPU are 866MHz+) with Gnome or KDE and the performance has been > > very slow in the GUI. Even with a higher end 1.5GHz CPU/512MB RAM system. > > > > Is there a Linux distribution that has a standard GUI that is very responsive? > Is Redhat > > just too bulky to run quickly, or do I need to download a better GUI for > Redhat? > > > > With Windows2000, this system was very responsive, and the other people I know > > about are running XP, which is so much faster that they run XP most of the > time now. > > > > Thanks, > > jeff > > > > > > > > -- > > €º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø > Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> > Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 > Cell: 508-517-4819 > Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ > Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ > Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ > KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ > AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto > €º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø,žž,ø€º°`°º€ø > > The hardest thing is to disguise your feelings when you put a lot of > relatives on the train for home. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug >

May 9, 2003

Re: [Wlug] Redhat GUI performance

by Karl Hiramoto

I've notice that when going from redhat 7.x to 8 or 9 you need a minimum of 256M RAM. with 128M and running gnome there is way too much swap space in use. Gnome and KDE are very bulky GUI's.. twm or blackbox are the slimest and fastest. A friend of mine runs gentoo linux and it seems very fast compared to redhat on the same box. type the "free" command at the prompt and see your memory usage also "ps aumx" to see process memory usage. I would reccomend spending the roughly $40 to get a 256M upgrade for your box. More RAM almost always helps. The os can keep more things in memory and give you a faster response. I use 512M myself. hope this helps On Fri, 9 May 2003, Hemstreet, Jeffrey L (Jeffrey) wrote: > I have a general question about Linux performance... > > I am running Redhat 8.0 on a Dell 400MHz, 128MB system (OptiPlex) with an > 8MB ATI Rage Pro Video card. I have a fairly basic workstation installation, with > SSHd, ftpd, telnetd, apached, and a couple other services running. Gnome seems > to take forever to open windows/applications. It can be on the order of 10 seconds > to a minute for some applications to come up. (Mozilla is one of the worst, even > to just bring up a local file as the home page for the browser) > > Is Gnome just a very slow GUI, or is there something that I can do to speed up my > system?? > > I know of several (5-6) people who have installed RedHat 7.2...8.0 on Dell and Sony > systems (all CPU are 866MHz+) with Gnome or KDE and the performance has been > very slow in the GUI. Even with a higher end 1.5GHz CPU/512MB RAM system. > > Is there a Linux distribution that has a standard GUI that is very responsive? Is Redhat > just too bulky to run quickly, or do I need to download a better GUI for Redhat? > > With Windows2000, this system was very responsive, and the other people I know > about are running XP, which is so much faster that they run XP most of the time now. > > Thanks, > jeff > > > -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø The hardest thing is to disguise your feelings when you put a lot of relatives on the train for home.

May 9, 2003

Redhat GUI performance

by Hemstreet, Jeffrey L (Jeffrey)

I have a general question about Linux performance... I am running Redhat 8.0 on a Dell 400MHz, 128MB system (OptiPlex) with an 8MB ATI Rage Pro Video card. I have a fairly basic workstation installation, with SSHd, ftpd, telnetd, apached, and a couple other services running. Gnome seems to take forever to open windows/applications. It can be on the order of 10 seconds to a minute for some applications to come up. (Mozilla is one of the worst, even to just bring up a local file as the home page for the browser) Is Gnome just a very slow GUI, or is there something that I can do to speed up my system?? I know of several (5-6) people who have installed RedHat 7.2...8.0 on Dell and Sony systems (all CPU are 866MHz+) with Gnome or KDE and the performance has been very slow in the GUI. Even with a higher end 1.5GHz CPU/512MB RAM system. Is there a Linux distribution that has a standard GUI that is very responsive? Is Redhat just too bulky to run quickly, or do I need to download a better GUI for Redhat? With Windows2000, this system was very responsive, and the other people I know about are running XP, which is so much faster that they run XP most of the time now. Thanks, jeff

May 9, 2003

http load generators

by twg3＠attbi.com

Does anyone have any recommendations of open source tools for generating very high volume http traffic simulating large numbers of clients form multiple IP addresses? I did a search on sourceforge and most of the projects have not released any new code in 18 months or more - so not sure of status on most of them. I need to test an application that uses HTTP as its transport layer (but not HTML) so open source tools would allow the customizations I need, with out haveing to write everything from scratch.

May 9, 2003

RE: [Wlug] /tmp

by twg3＠attbi.com

Good advice. The X window system amd font server create its unix domain sockets as files under /tmp along with other programs, which will not show up doing "fuser -u /tmp/*". Also do a "netstat -pA" to get a list of all the unix domain sockets and look for files in /tmp. The -p will let you know which program you will break if you delete the socket, but just leave those files alone as they are not taking up any space on the file system, just an inode. > Gregory, > > You'll want to do a "fuser -u /tmp/*" and see what files are currently in > use. If it's currently not in use, it's probably safe to delete. > > Tim. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregory Avedissian [mailto:avedis@rcn.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:14 PM > To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > Subject: [Wlug] /tmp > > > Is it safe to delete the contents of the /tmp directory to make some > space on the drive? > > Thanks. > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug >

May 9, 2003

RE: [Wlug] /tmp

by Keller, Tim

Gregory, You'll want to do a "fuser -u /tmp/*" and see what files are currently in use. If it's currently not in use, it's probably safe to delete. Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Avedissian [mailto:avedis@rcn.com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:14 PM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: [Wlug] /tmp Is it safe to delete the contents of the /tmp directory to make some space on the drive? Thanks. Greg _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

May 8, 2003

/tmp

by Gregory Avedissian

Is it safe to delete the contents of the /tmp directory to make some space on the drive? Thanks. Greg

May 8, 2003

Re: [Wlug] scanner help

by Bill Mills-Curran

Andy, Thanks for the tips. I've tried everything you suggested, and still no joy. However, I think that a newer version of sane is in order. I'm still using the version from RH 8.0: > rpm -qa|fgrep sane sane-backends-1.0.8-5 sane-frontends-1.0.8-4 xsane-0.84-8 I have the Red Hat 9 CD's, and I'll upgrade as soon as possible to see what happens. Thanks, Bill

May 8, 2003