[ALUG] "Warning: we recommend you do not upgrade to ubuntu 10.04"

Chris G cl at isbd.net
Tue Dec 14 13:02:14 GMT 2010

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:11:48AM +0000, nev young wrote:
> On 14/12/10 07:29, Tim Green wrote:
> >On 14 December 2010 00:07, Srdjan Todorovic<todorovic.s at googlemail.com>  wrote:
> >>Hmm... mind you...... on my dual core 2.6GHz-ish machine, with buntu
> >>10.04, the load average is: 0.57, 0.50, 0.59  for a pretty much idle
> >>machine except firefox having a few tabs open.
> >>
> >>I remember a single-core machine with a slower clock, less ram etc,
> >>about 4 years ago having an idle load of about 0.05, 0.01, 0.01. I'm
> >>sure this isn't a very good or scientific comparison, but I sometimes
> >>wonder if there is a problem with Linux.
> >
> My system is a dual AMD 64 Athlon 3.2GHz (I think) with 4GB ram and
> about 2.5 TB of internal disk. Running the default 10.04 kernal and
> gnome desktop. Used mainly as web and file server (24/7) and part
> time PVR (using kaffeine) as well as my main email and web browsing
> and development machine.
> Clearly other people have issues with ubuntu 10.04 so maybe I'm just lucky.
I've got (quick count ....) six systems running xubuntu 10.04 or ubuntu
server 10.04, I've not had performance problems on any of them really. 
There's a seventh system that also ran it without problems but is now
sitting on the floor turned off.

The more powerful desktop systems all have 'on the motherboard' Intel
graphics, except the older turned off one which has nVidia I think.  No
issues at all on any of these systems except occasionally some versions
of VirtualBox hogged the processor, the current VirtualBox no longer
seems to do this.

My wifes laptop is a Dell Vostro V13, single core Intel processor, that
has no issues at all with xubuntu 10.04 and even runs VirtualBox quite

The little Acer Revo runs as a headless server (for CUPS and DNS) with
Ubuntu 10.04 server on it, I have a few GUI applications on it (synaptic
in particular) which I run using my desktop machine as the X server.  No
performance issues at all, it's hardly lightning fast but perfectly
acceptable for the jobs it does.

I have an Acer Aspire netbook (atom processor), mostly just for web
browsing and ssh, it's quite happy with xubuntu 10.04, Firefox doesn't
seem to cause it any problems.

Finally I have Ubuntu 10.04 server running on the eeePc which only has a
2Gb SSD, it's a tight squeeze (at installation I didn't add *anything to
the base install) but again does all I need quite happily.  The 2Gb is
now 70% full with a full gcc/g++, configure, make, etc. development
system installed on it (to build OWFS) and mutt (which pulled in quite a
lot of other bits, such as postfix which I removed again).

OK, these are all xubuntu but there's not a big difference between
xubuntu and ubuntu.  I think it's KDE that can eat a lot of processor.

Chris Green

More information about the main mailing list