Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
Hi everybody, I have recently changed the Distro of one of my computers from Debian Woody to Red Hat 9 (I liked Woody, but had my reasons) What I noticed ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd, Wales
    Posts
    104

    Radhat 9 slower than Redhat 8


    Hi everybody,

    I have recently changed the Distro of one of my computers from Debian Woody to Red Hat 9 (I liked Woody, but had my reasons)

    What I noticed was that RH 9 uses a lot more RAM, and tehrefore becomes much slower that Woody. A friend of mine also upgraded recently from RH 8 to RH 9, only to have to change back as RH 9 was just too slow.

    My friend tried all the usual performance tweaks but with no luck. He even tried running RH 9 with the RH 8 kernel but it also seemed to make no differnce.

    Can anybody tell me why RH 9 should be this much more memory intensive?

    I'd like to be able to improve the performance of my machine.

    nomar.
    \"One World, One Web, One Program.\" -- Advertisement for Internet Explorer.
    \"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.\" -- Adolf Hitler.

  2. #2
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    Quote Originally Posted by nomar
    He even tried running RH 9 with the RH 8 kernel but it also seemed to make no differnce.
    I would have been very surprised if that had helped. The kernel itself leaves a very small RAM footprint.

    These things are usually the work of the GUIs. Both GNOME and KDE grow for each release, and I don't know if there's much to do except downgrading. Check with "ps -Al | sort +9n" what applications take the most memory. Don't care about the X server, it's usually very swappable.

  3. #3
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd, Wales
    Posts
    104
    Thank for the reply Dolda,

    X only uses around 15 MB without desktop walpaper (around 19 with), which isn'y a great deal i spose - it's using 90 MB on my other machine.

    Next on the list is the gnome-panel, then gconfd-2 and nautilus. But the mem useage isn't huge - it all adds up though.

    My friend is running RH 8 which has been upgraded to Gnome 2.2 - and reports no loss in performance from using Gnome 2. Though I havn't seen this in action.

    Though it would be interesting to see RH 8 and RH 9 side by side to compare, I don't think I'll bother. I''ll just stick more ram in and get on with it! (I only have 128 Mb in there at the moment)

    I was just wandering if anyone had any similar experiences or an explination.

    nomar.
    \"One World, One Web, One Program.\" -- Advertisement for Internet Explorer.
    \"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.\" -- Adolf Hitler.

  4. #4
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    15

    my thoughts ....

    Ii have a toshiba pentium 4 2gb cpu - 512mb ram and a single 60gb drive......
    the drive is split into two partitions - one for XP Pro and One for RHL 9

    I have found that the linux o/s under gnome run's slower than xp - time taken to open / browse directories is noticable....

    Maybe I need to tune my Linux - but out of the box it's slower......

  5. #5
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd, Wales
    Posts
    104
    That it may be!

    I can't say that I can see much difference.

    I'm using ext3 filesystem with RH 9 at the moment; only journaling option at install. However I've used Reiser FS quite a bit in the past, and I belive I could detect a slight increase in speed. I was dual booding Mandrake 9.1 and RH 8 on the same machine RH 8 using ext3 and MDK 9.1 using Reiser FS - so it was quite a fair comparison.

    As for tuning your linux you'd need to address the appropriate issue with regard to speed. You've got lots of RAM and CPU speed, I imagine that RH has done a reasonable job of optamizing you HD - you can check with hdparm. If the only slow thing you have is browsing directories, it may be a HD or filesystem issue.

    nomar.
    \"One World, One Web, One Program.\" -- Advertisement for Internet Explorer.
    \"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.\" -- Adolf Hitler.

  6. #6
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    The problem isn't with Linux, it's with GNOME. I agree with you completely, Nautilus is awfully slow, but again, note that the problem isn't with Linux. Linux can list all those directories in just a matter of milliseconds (especially when the cache is warmed up), whereas Nautilus can take up to half a minute to list my MP3 directory, and a couple of seconds just to list my home directory. I don't really know why it is that way, but I believe that Konqueror is faster.
    This is just proof of why you shouldn't use a GUI at all. =)

  7. #7
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd, Wales
    Posts
    104
    In defence of Gnome and nautilus, Gnome 2.x is quicker than 1.4, and nautilus seems fine to me!

    I do think that you need plenty of ram though: my main machine has 512M and my second 128M. As i mentioned in another post 128M simply isn't enough.

    My system is responsive - other people running both windowsand linux have said that - plenty of RAM and a fast hard drive - 7200 rpm spin, but more importantly a 8Mb cache.

    When I get my 3rd machine running it'll be debian using reiser fs - if I can find the money I'll buy an identical hard drive as well, best thing i ever bought!

    nomar.
    \"One World, One Web, One Program.\" -- Advertisement for Internet Explorer.
    \"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.\" -- Adolf Hitler.

  8. #8
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    15

    Horses for courses.....

    I agree with all the comments - linux as a pure os is quick - when you add a GUI obviously there is a performance impact (same can be said of using your pc in ms-dos mode).

    BUT on my pc XP is faster at doing the same stuff - opening word / excel takes a second or two - where in Linux - it can take 5 to 10 seconds !

    It's probably a configuration issue on my part however I intend to keep working on Linux and hopefully with experience and the help of the Linux Community I will improve my technical understanding and become a happy user.....

    rant over...

    Mike

  9. #9
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pontypridd, Wales
    Posts
    104
    What you may be talking about is the time it takes for Open Office to open in the first instance.

    Open office has its own toolkit (not GTK, Qt etc) and therefore takes a while to load the first time. Once you have one open, opening other instances should be damn quick.

    I'm not sure but I think that Open Office is just as slow in Windows.

    A similar example would be comparing IE in windows and Mozilla in Linux. IE is an integral part of windows, and therefore loads quickly. Mozilla in windows however should compare well with Mozilla in Linux.

    As for speed increase there seems to be good news on the horizon in the form of the new 2.5 series kernel which is meant to significantly faster.

    nomar
    \"One World, One Web, One Program.\" -- Advertisement for Internet Explorer.
    \"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.\" -- Adolf Hitler.

  10. #10
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    15

    Hardware Matters

    I recently "clean installed" from RH8 to RH9 and I have actually noticed an increase in speed. But as the general statements of this discussion goes, hardware makes a difference. I am running it on a PIII 900 mobile, with 512MB RAM, 16MB Video. I have an older system that installed RH6 on and it takes about 5 minutes (literally) for it to boot.

    Regards.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •