performance / high load average problems - mint 9 too?
I read this last evening about ubuntu 10.04 - any of you developer folk tested it by any chance?
http://linuxforums.org.uk/ubuntu/warning-we-recommend-you-do-not-upgrade-to-...
I found ubuntu 10.10 unusable and yet these folk say it's ok.
I was wondering if it was solved for xfce Mint 9? Or is this why Mepis decided on debian distros?
yours james
On 13 December 2010 22:56, James Freer jessejazza@googlemail.com wrote:
performance / high load average problems - mint 9 too?
I read this last evening about ubuntu 10.04 - any of you developer folk tested it by any chance?
http://linuxforums.org.uk/ubuntu/warning-we-recommend-you-do-not-upgrade-to-...
These posts are pretty old.
I found ubuntu 10.10 unusable and yet these folk say it's ok.
I find it OK as long as you don't run KDE-proper, (but some KDE apps are very slow), and as long as you don't move/copy a lot of data about.
The data copy/move issue might be solved by the recent-ish changes to the kernel regarding c-groups (??). I have not yet had the time to play with a vanilla kernel on *buntu - but others say this has effectively fixed the problem.
I don't know why you found it unusable, maybe you could elaborate on that for the people reading this list that are more into Ubuntu.
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.
- Srdjan
On 14 December 2010 00:07, Srdjan Todorovic todorovic.s@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.
I am using Ubuntu 10.04, default kernel, default Gnome, on a single core machine (Pentium 4 3GHz), and almost all my load issues are caused by Firefox! I have one tab open to write this email and the load average is about 0.18. Meanwhile in top the other big CPU users over the past 6 days uptime are "beam.smp" (part of couch db, part of gwibber, which is pants because it breaks when I sleep or hibernate the computer) and Xorg.
Tim.
On 14/12/10 07:29, Tim Green wrote:
On 14 December 2010 00:07, Srdjan Todorovictodorovic.s@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.
I am using Ubuntu 10.04, default kernel, default Gnome, on a single core machine (Pentium 4 3GHz), and almost all my load issues are caused by Firefox! I have one tab open to write this email and the load average is about 0.18. Meanwhile in top the other big CPU users over the past 6 days uptime are "beam.smp" (part of couch db, part of gwibber, which is pants because it breaks when I sleep or hibernate the computer) and Xorg.
I am also using ubuntu 10.04 since June this year. I didn't have the upgrade problems from my previous o/s (Kubuntu 8.04 32bit) as I did a clean install to the 64 bit 10.04.
I have a nvidia card that works ok but the system reports "no proprietary drivers in use".
top reports: 09:49:33 up 11 days, 20:28, 2 users, load average: 0.19, 0.34, 0.31 Tasks: 213 total, 1 running, 212 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 3.8%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 95.4%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 3350264k total, 2881072k used, 469192k free, 465348k buffers Swap: 1124508k total, 6260k used, 1118248k free, 1385244k cached
Although I admit to not knowing what load average is or most of the other numbers! Although I really must increase the size of my swap.
The only real performance issue I've had was running some f-photo which after a few hours had taken 100% of the memory and 100% of the swap. Other processes then started to die. That was my last re-boot. Otherwise it just chugs away 24/7. Of course I have nothing to compare it to but I feel it is much faster than Kubuntu 8.04 which I had put down to now running a 64bit o/s.
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 upgraded one of the laptops about a fortnight ago to 10.10. Seems OK so far.
Hope this helps somebody.
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 Todorovictodorovic.s@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.
[snip]
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 happily.
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 G cl@isbd.net [2010-12-14 13:04]: <snip>
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).
<snip> ** end quote [Chris G]
If you don't want to install and then remove the extra packages disable the automatic installation of recommended packages. If you are using aptitude from the command line then you will need the -R or --without-recommends flag. Alternatively if you are using Synaptic just uncheck the "Consider recommended packages as dependencies" box on the General tab of the Preferences. I only recently twigged that Ubuntu automatically installs all recommended packages by default - actually when I was wanting to install Mutt myself. I'd never really considered looking into it before!
Oh, keeping with the subject to end, I'm running 10.04 on my server quite happily at the moment. It is a dual core Atom 330 based system running headless with no X and has been upgraded from 9.04 through 9.10 to 10.04. My only glitch was that I did the upgrade remotely via SSH using screen. During the process I lost connection and when I hooked back I had a few issues connecting back into my screen session due to changes in the upgrade process. I think I had to directly use screen rather than a wrapper that Ubuntu had set up.
My netbook is also running 10.04, and the only issues there seem to be fact that it uses a Via chipset which never seems perfectly supported. Oh, this desktop is too, this time a clean install instead of an upgrade.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:30:04PM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
** Chris G cl@isbd.net [2010-12-14 13:04]:
<snip> > 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). <snip> ** end quote [Chris G]
If you don't want to install and then remove the extra packages disable the automatic installation of recommended packages. If you are using aptitude from the command line then you will need the -R or --without-recommends flag. Alternatively if you are using Synaptic just uncheck the "Consider recommended packages as dependencies" box on the General tab of the Preferences. I only recently twigged that Ubuntu automatically installs all recommended packages by default - actually when I was wanting to install Mutt myself. I'd never really considered looking into it before!
Yes, I had realised that this was going on but it was only with mutt that really unnecessary and large things (like postfix) got installed.
** Chris G cl@isbd.net [2010-12-14 14:52]:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:30:04PM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
** Chris G cl@isbd.net [2010-12-14 13:04]:
<snip> > 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). <snip> ** end quote [Chris G]
If you don't want to install and then remove the extra packages disable the automatic installation of recommended packages. If you are using aptitude from the command line then you will need the -R or --without-recommends flag. Alternatively if you are using Synaptic just uncheck the "Consider recommended packages as dependencies" box on the General tab of the Preferences. I only recently twigged that Ubuntu automatically installs all recommended packages by default - actually when I was wanting to install Mutt myself. I'd never really considered looking into it before!
Yes, I had realised that this was going on but it was only with mutt that really unnecessary and large things (like postfix) got installed.
** end quote [Chris G]
Same here. It was when I wanted to install mutt to use with an imap account and really didn't want a local mail server installed that I actually got round to investigating further! Before I had always either had or wanted to install Exim.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:15:35PM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
** Chris G cl@isbd.net [2010-12-14 14:52]:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:30:04PM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
** Chris G cl@isbd.net [2010-12-14 13:04]:
<snip> > 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). <snip> ** end quote [Chris G]
If you don't want to install and then remove the extra packages disable the automatic installation of recommended packages. If you are using aptitude from the command line then you will need the -R or --without-recommends flag. Alternatively if you are using Synaptic just uncheck the "Consider recommended packages as dependencies" box on the General tab of the Preferences. I only recently twigged that Ubuntu automatically installs all recommended packages by default - actually when I was wanting to install Mutt myself. I'd never really considered looking into it before!
Yes, I had realised that this was going on but it was only with mutt that really unnecessary and large things (like postfix) got installed.
** end quote [Chris G]
Same here. It was when I wanted to install mutt to use with an imap account and really didn't want a local mail server installed that I actually got round to investigating further! Before I had always either had or wanted to install Exim.
I didn't want/need an MTA at all, for just a single user on a tiny system it doesn't make sense and mutt can do SMTP itself now so an MTA isn't necessary.
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.
Thanks for your replies... i was just wondering. I had no problems with xubuntu 10.04 but did with xubuntu 10.10 (which everyone else seems to run fine).
As for KDE - i found Mepis ran beautifully on a test P3 512mb... when it comes to KDE Mepis is ace.
remember this? http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/135270
yours james
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 23:47 +0000, James Freer wrote:
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.
Thanks for your replies... i was just wondering. I had no problems with xubuntu 10.04 but did with xubuntu 10.10 (which everyone else seems to run fine).
As for KDE - i found Mepis ran beautifully on a test P3 512mb... when it comes to KDE Mepis is ace.
I am running Ubuntu 10.10 on my desktop machine and have had no performance problems at all.
I tried the 10.10 netbook remix on my netbook and found that while initially usable it soon became too slow to be useful. By "soon" I mean within a minute or two of logging in. I suspect a memory leak in this case but I did not have time to investigate and had to put 10.04 back on it which works fine.
Steve.
"Steve Fosdick" sjflists@btinternet.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 23:47 +0000, James Freer wrote:
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.
Thanks for your replies... i was just wondering. I had no problems with xubuntu 10.04 but did with xubuntu 10.10 (which everyone else seems to run fine).
As for KDE - i found Mepis ran beautifully on a test P3 512mb... when it comes to KDE Mepis is ace.
I am running Ubuntu 10.10 on my desktop machine and have had no performance problems at all.
I tried the 10.10 netbook remix on my netbook and found that while initially usable it soon became too slow to be useful. By "soon" I mean within a minute or two of logging in. I suspect a memory leak in this case but I did not have time to investigate and had to put 10.04 back on it which works fine.
Steve.
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
I tried 10.10 on my netbook and hated the unity interface so much I binned it pretty quickly.
Mick
-
Chris G -
James Freer -
Mick -
nev young -
Paul Tansom -
Srdjan Todorovic -
Steve Fosdick -
Tim Green