Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
My best guess is the NVidia driver. Even in Widows a newer NVidia driver can mess up performance. First, try to lower the refresh rate to something civilized, say 70MHz. ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Newbie previso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    116

    My best guess is the NVidia driver. Even in Widows a newer NVidia driver can mess up performance. First, try to lower the refresh rate to something civilized, say 70MHz. If that doesn't do the trick, try to revert to the previous version of the driver.

  2. #12
    Linux Guru reed9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,651
    Quote Originally Posted by MagicHobo View Post
    Interesting. I'll definitely have to play with that. For right now, however, all of my media is stored on NAS, so I'm not sure how useful it will be.

    I installed Kubuntu 10.10 last night, turned off all the desktop effects and started playing around with streaming from Pandora. All was well until I started installing updates, and then the system started to get bogged down pretty heavily. I was even noticing a stutter in playback here and there. Should I be using Gnome for performance purposes? Are there any daemons I could turn off to speed things up? CUPS maybe?

    I feel like turning things off might also have a positive effect on my boot time. This isn't a huge deal. I was actually pretty pleased with how quickly Kubuntu booted considering my past experiences, but I feel like there is a lot I could trim away considering I have no intentions for using this as anything other than a media player.

    And if you think there's something I could be turning off, how would I go about doing that?
    Having your music on NAS shouldn't matter. Is your networked drive being mounted on boot?

    You can certainly turn off any daemons you aren't using, such as CUPS. I don't recall all what Ubuntu has going by default, but I think there's a good amount of extraneous stuff.

    Part of the problem might be KDE's obnoxious semantic desktop stuff. Disable strigi and nepomuk as well.

    Speed up KUbuntu 10.04 LTS – disable virtuoso-t / strigi / nepomuk yet another weblog

    It could also be a driver problem as previously mentioned.

    Lastly, KDE in general is quite resource intensive. While your machine is capable of running it, performance may never be great. If it's primary use is to stream music, I would look into lighter weight options. If you like Ubuntu, there is Lubuntu, Mint LXDE, or Mint Fluxbox.

    Anything that uses just a light window manager like openbox or fluxbox should perform better.

  3. #13
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
    Having your music on NAS shouldn't matter. Is your networked drive being mounted on boot?
    Yes on windows, no on Linux. I have set it up on Linux in the past, but I would be lying if I told you I remembered how. I plan on looking this up and implementing it once I find a distro I want to stick with.

    Lastly, KDE in general is quite resource intensive. While your machine is capable of running it, performance may never be great. If it's primary use is to stream music, I would look into lighter weight options. If you like Ubuntu, there is Lubuntu, Mint LXDE, or Mint Fluxbox.

    Anything that uses just a light window manager like openbox or fluxbox should perform better.
    Really, the only reason I've tried to stay with Ubuntu varieties is because of the larger userbase. Since I am a new user, I expect to be frequently looking for support on the web so I'm under the impression that I will be able to find it the most easily if I stick with a popular distro. I took a look at Lubuntu, and I do really like the 'lighter' install, my only worry is that the "The Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment" or other less popular desktop environments might leave me screwed should I run into problems.

    Is that something I should be worried about? How much lighter is gnome than KDE?

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Linux Newbie previso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    116
    The NAS and Linux machine should ideally be in the same network (ex. "MSHOME" or "Workgroup" ). I infer you already have configured the NAS for file sharing.
    REM Samba needs to be configured before the NAS is accesible to Linux
    REM Try Knoppix for starters.

    Whether the music will stream from the NAS or not depends on the media player. I can stream from my NAS with some players, but have to download to local machine with others. It's a very satisfying experience to listen to favorites from the porch streaming to the laptop from the NAS, and video too.

    On the KDE assessment: I only have 128MB RAM more than your laptop, resource hogging may be A Gnomist's reasoning to prefer it over KDE, and my CPU is slower than your laptop too.

  6. #15
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by previso View Post
    The NAS and Linux machine should ideally be in the same network (ex. "MSHOME" or "Workgroup" ). I infer you already have configured the NAS for file sharing.
    REM Samba needs to be configured before the NAS is accesible to Linux
    REM Try Knoppix for starters.
    I never bother with netbios sharing so I'm not sure what workgroup any of my computers are on. The NAS is currently being shared using SMB and UPnP.

    Whether the music will stream from the NAS or not depends on the media player. I can stream from my NAS with some players, but have to download to local machine with others. It's a very satisfying experience to listen to favorites from the porch streaming to the laptop from the NAS, and video too.
    I'm assuming any distro that I use will be able to map an SMB share, right? In that case, does it really matter what player I'm using?

    On the KDE assessment: I only have 128MB RAM more than your laptop, resource hogging may be A Gnomist's reasoning to prefer it over KDE, and my CPU is slower than your laptop too.
    I haven't given up on KDE on the whole. I imagine I will probably use it on a desktop machine of mine in the future. In this case, however, since my end goal is effectively a glorified jukebox, speed is my primary concern. Because of that, I'm getting the general feeling that there are better options than KDE in this case.

  7. #16
    Linux Newbie previso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    116
    I run LXDE on a laptop w/128 MB RAM. Amarok won't play from NAS.

  8. #17
    Linux Guru reed9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,651
    Subjectively, I find gnome to feel more responsive than KDE and generally use less ram. For some time I was running gnome, but replacing its window manager with openbox, but I'm currently back to running openbox as a standalone and keeping it as light as possible. (Lubuntu uses openbox, as the standard window manager for LXDE.)

    I think you're right that using Ubuntu and derivatives can make it easier to find support. I wouldn't worry about whether you're using GNOME, KDE, or some alternative. There's generally plenty of places to find info and support.

    Samba will be available in any distro.

  9. #18
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by previso View Post
    I run LXDE on a laptop w/128 MB RAM. Amarok won't play from NAS.
    You don't want Amarok to look for your network share specifically. What you want to do is have samba do that for you.

    Google "linux map samba" and click the top link. (I would post the link myself but I can't do that until I hit 15 posts) Doing this will make your shard folder appear as if it is a drive or directory on your local machine and then Amarok should have no problems playing its content.

  10. #19
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
    For some time I was running gnome, but replacing its window manager with openbox...
    I think I might try this. Am I wrong to assume that when you're running openbox, you don't take a performance hit from having gnome, it just takes additional disk space?

  11. #20
    Linux Guru reed9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,651
    Quote Originally Posted by MagicHobo View Post
    I think I might try this. Am I wrong to assume that when you're running openbox, you don't take a performance hit from having gnome, it just takes additional disk space?
    Not entirely. Openbox is faster and lighter than metacity, the current default GNOME window manager, but other GNOME stuff still gets loaded. I don't have any personal number, but I've heard folks say they save ~30-50 MB RAM switching to GNOME+Openbox.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 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
  •