SEO

Hi.

I installed the new 9.1 and I'm really surprised: this new version is
really slower than the previous one.

Anybody can show me the reason? Same packages, nothing different... I
had 9.0 updated, and all the packages in 9.1 are the same of the
previous system.
--
Sensei <mailto:senseiwa:tin.it> <icq:241572242>

But still I fear, and still I dare not
Laugh at the mad man (The Prophet's song)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:51:11 +0000, Sensei wrote:

> Hi.

Hello.

> I installed the new 9.1 and I'm really surprised:

Looks good a?

> this new version is really slower than the previous one.

"new version" of what program(s)?
"really slower" in doing which task(s)?

> Anybody can show me the reason?

Not if you don't provide any useable info/intel.

> Same packages, nothing different...

Which "Same packages" would that be?

> I had 9.0 updated, and all the packages in 9.1 are the same of the
> previous system.

In that case you might be missing some packages needed in a 9.1 system.
I'd atleast "upgradepkg --install-new" the A, AP and L series of packages.

--
-Menno.

Menno Duursma wrote:
> Looks good a?

Better look, indeed! Especially font smoothing (AA).

> "new version" of what program(s)?
> "really slower" in doing which task(s)?

KDE 3.1.4, any other! Kernel 2.4.22 (self-compiled)...

> Not if you don't provide any useable info/intel.

On the same machine:

Acer Aspire 1307LC
Athlon XP 2200+
256 Mb SDRAM
HD UDMA100 30 Gb

> Which "Same packages" would that be?

Everyone.

> In that case you might be missing some packages needed in a 9.1 system.
> I'd atleast "upgradepkg --install-new" the A, AP and L series of packages.

I did a full install of 9.0, a full upgrade (packages from patches/ and
linuxpackages.net).

I did a full install of 9.1 (keeping my home). All the installed
packages have a version equal to the previous system.

I don't understand this slowdown... I'll add 256 Mb of RAM as soon as
possible...
--
Sensei <mailto:senseiwa:tin.it> <icq:241572242>

But still I fear, and still I dare not
Laugh at the mad man (The Prophet's song)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:12:30 +0000, Sensei wrote:
> Menno Duursma wrote:
>> Looks good a?
>
> Better look, indeed! Especially font smoothing (AA).

Yes.

>> "new version" of what program(s)?
>> "really slower" in doing which task(s)?
>
> KDE 3.1.4,

Well, does it start slower?
(In that case you might want to have a look in `/etc/hosts' and see if
`localhost' is setup correctly. And if you get your `eth0' or `ppp' adress
via DHCP you might even want to setup a `dummy' interface and map your
hostname to that.)

> any other!

Odd, i have not noticed that at all.
Have a look at the output of `top'.
Also are you sure your HD is running DMA?
(Try `hdparm' for that.)

> Kernel 2.4.22 (self-compiled)...

Ok.
What's the status with the default kernel?
You might even want to try the one shiped with 9.0 as well.

>> Not if you don't provide any useable info/intel.
>
> On the same machine:
>
> Acer Aspire 1307LC
> Athlon XP 2200+
> 256 Mb SDRAM
> HD UDMA100 30 Gb

That should be a realy fast machine.

>> Which "Same packages" would that be?
>
> Everyone.
>
> > In that case you might be missing some packages needed in a 9.1 system.
>> I'd atleast "upgradepkg --install-new" the A, AP and L series of packages.
>
> I did a full install of 9.0, a full upgrade (packages from patches/ and
> linuxpackages.net).

Ok.

> I did a full install of 9.1 (keeping my home). All the installed
> packages have a version equal to the previous system.

Good, the reinstall should rule out the upgrade being the problem.

> I don't understand this slowdown... I'll add 256 Mb of RAM as soon as
> possible...

More RAM is useually a good idee, but 256MB should just be enough for your
everyday desktop system. I wouldn't expect you to notice much of a
difference unless you run lots of big apps.

There are some tweaks which makes a desktop more "snappy" if you will.
Such as patching the kernel lo-latency and preempt-able, running the
X-server at "nice -10" and sound at "nice -20", messing about disk-access
and filesystem settings, recompileing FPU intensive apps (optimized), etc.

However, since you didn't post haveing done any of that on 9.0 either i
suspect either "hostname (reverse) lookup failure" or HD setup incorrect...

--
-Menno.

Menno Duursma wrote:
> Well, does it start slower?
> (In that case you might want to have a look in `/etc/hosts' and see if

Mh... I didn't see hosts and hosts.allow/deny...

> `localhost' is setup correctly. And if you get your `eth0' or `ppp' adress
> via DHCP you might even want to setup a `dummy' interface and map your
> hostname to that.)

No, I have my departmental IP and name.

> Odd, i have not noticed that at all.
> Have a look at the output of `top'.
> Also are you sure your HD is running DMA?
> (Try `hdparm' for that.)

I set up in rc.local parameters for HD/DVD/CDRW

-d1 -u1 -X69 -c1 (-m16 for the HD)

(I don't know if -c3 will speed up something...)

> Ok.
> What's the status with the default kernel?
> You might even want to try the one shiped with 9.0 as well.

> That should be a realy fast machine.

Should...

> Good, the reinstall should rule out the upgrade being the problem.

> More RAM is useually a good idee, but 256MB should just be enough for your
> everyday desktop system. I wouldn't expect you to notice much of a
> difference unless you run lots of big apps.

I thought so!

> There are some tweaks which makes a desktop more "snappy" if you will.
> Such as patching the kernel lo-latency and preempt-able, running the
> X-server at "nice -10" and sound at "nice -20", messing about disk-access
> and filesystem settings, recompileing FPU intensive apps (optimized), etc.
>
> However, since you didn't post haveing done any of that on 9.0 either i
> suspect either "hostname (reverse) lookup failure" or HD setup incorrect...

Nothing of above... But the hosts fact is interesting. I will check it.

--
Sensei <mailto:senseiwa:tin.it> <icq:241572242>

But still I fear, and still I dare not
Laugh at the mad man (The Prophet's song)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:50:57 +0000, Sensei wrote:
> Menno Duursma wrote:
>> Well, does it start slower?
>> (In that case you might want to have a look in `/etc/hosts' and see if
>
> Mh... I didn't see hosts and hosts.allow/deny...

No need to look into "hosts.allow/deny",
maybe "/etc/nsswitch.conf" and "/etc/host.conf":
(make sure it searches "files" before "nis", "dns", etc) and
And: "/etc/resolf.conf":
(make sure it searches LAN domain first).

>> `localhost' is setup correctly. And if you get your `eth0' or `ppp' adress
>> via DHCP you might even want to setup a `dummy' interface and map your
>> hostname to that.)
>
> No, I have my departmental IP and name.

If you don't post the contents then i can only guess... Here is wat i have:

# For loopbacking.
127.0.0.1 localhost.lo localhost
192.168.0.10 mybox.some.lan mybox

....

>> Odd, i have not noticed that at all.
>> Have a look at the output of `top'.

Well, anything odd? Again why not post relevant output?
(For all i know there is some process eating away RAM and/or CPU cycles...)

>> Also are you sure your HD is running DMA?
>> (Try `hdparm' for that.)
>
> I set up in rc.local parameters for HD/DVD/CDRW
>
> -d1 -u1 -X69 -c1 (-m16 for the HD)

This doesn't seem correct. The `-X69' should probably be `-X66'.
However if the chipset driver finds your controller correctly -
you shouldn't have to specify that at all. If it does not get detected ok,
you'll need to feed the kernel "idebus=66" or some such.

man hdparm

Also setting CD-ROM (or some such) devices to use DMA might couse
headaches with some setups as well - and they might also have to be
jumpered for it (BTW)...

> (I don't know if -c3 will speed up something...)

It might, why not try it and use "hdparm -Tt /dev/hda" to see if it helps.

>> Ok.
>> What's the status with the default kernel?
>> You might even want to try the one shiped with 9.0 as well.

Any results on that?
(Or even commands.)

>> That should be a realy fast machine.
>
> Should...

Technically yes.

[snip]

--
-Menno.

Menno Duursma wrote:
> No need to look into "hosts.allow/deny",
> maybe "/etc/nsswitch.conf" and "/etc/host.conf" [...]

=== /etc/hosts:

127.0.0.1 localhost
193.204.161.37 quantum.dia.uniroma3.it quantum

=== /etc/host.conf:

order hosts, bind
multi on

=== /etc/hosts.allow && /etc/hosts.deny

***EMPTY***


=== /etc/nsswitch.conf

#passwd: files nis
#shadow: files nis
#group: files nis

passwd: compat
group: compat
hosts: files
networks: files
services: files
protocols: files
rpc: files
ethers: files
netmask: files
netgroup: files
bootparams: files
automount: files
aliases: files

=== /etc/resolv.conf

search dia.uniroma3.it
nameserver 193.204.161.133
.... (other DNS) ...



Now, I don't see what is not correct... or how to increase the speed...

> This doesn't seem correct. The `-X69' should probably be `-X66'.

66 = UDMA 2
69 = UDMA 5

> However if the chipset driver finds your controller correctly -
> you shouldn't have to specify that at all. If it does not get detected ok,
> you'll need to feed the kernel "idebus=66" or some such.

I don't know the bus speed...
--
Sensei <mailto:senseiwa:tin.it> <icq:241572242>

But still I fear, and still I dare not
Laugh at the mad man (The Prophet's song)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:13:18 +0000, Sensei wrote:

> Menno Duursma wrote:
>> No need to look into "hosts.allow/deny",
>> maybe "/etc/nsswitch.conf" and "/etc/host.conf" [...]
>
> === /etc/hosts:
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost

This is incorrect syntax, the IP-addy should be mapped to the FQDN and any
aliases specified after that, try changeing it to:

127.0.0.1 localhost.loopback localhost

And and map `loopback' in '/etc/networks' as well, ie:
127.0.0.0 loopback
(Not you can use some other matching bogus name (like `lo') if you want.)

> 193.204.161.37 quantum.dia.uniroma3.it quantum

And add that network adress adress mapping to `networks' as well.

Ok, so (now) you should be able to resolf `quantum.dia.uniroma3.it' and
`localhost.loopback' correct locally.
Make sure: `/etc/HOSTNAME' is set to `quantum.dia.uniroma3.it'.
If you want some other hostname setup a `dummy' interface (in `rc.inet1')
and add a mapping for that to `hosts' and `networks' also.

> === /etc/host.conf:
>
> order hosts, bind
> multi on

Ok.

> === /etc/hosts.allow && /etc/hosts.deny
>
> ***EMPTY***

That shouldn't have much to do with this in any case.

> === /etc/nsswitch.conf
>
> #passwd: files nis
> #shadow: files nis
> #group: files nis
>
> passwd: compat
> group: compat
> hosts: files

Try setting this to:
hosts: files dns

(Idunno if you realy need to, but it's setup like that on my boxen -
and they work fine.)

[Snip - rest, look fine to me.]

> === /etc/resolv.conf
>
> search dia.uniroma3.it
> nameserver 193.204.161.133
> ... (other DNS) ...

So your box first searches in the `dia.uniroma3.it' domain. (After trying
the local files) if you don't connect to boxen in that domain very often
try omitting it.

> Now, I don't see what is not correct... or how to increase the speed...

I dunno if it helps much but fix what i pointed out first.
If no others connect to your local X server, try forceing it to use Unix
domain sockets, ie: "startx -- -nolisten tcp"
(If you don't already.)

>> This doesn't seem correct. The `-X69' should probably be `-X66'.
>
> 66 = UDMA 2
> 69 = UDMA 5

Ok, didn't know that (as i don't explicitly specify it).
Thanks.

Does your drive actually support that?

root@desktop:/home/menno# hdparm -i /dev/hda |grep udma
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5

>> However if the chipset driver finds your controller correctly - you
>> shouldn't have to specify that at all. If it does not get detected ok,
>> you'll need to feed the kernel "idebus=66" or some such.
>
> I don't know the bus speed...

Well, you shouldn't have to feet the kernel that in anyways.
You might want to try something like this though:
append="ide0=autotune hda=autotune"

But you can feed it "ide0=ata66" and so on as well.
(I think UDMA5 is 100 BTW, not sure.)

However, do try some more conservative settings.

--
-Menno.

Menno Duursma wrote:
> This is incorrect syntax, the IP-addy should be mapped to the FQDN and any
> aliases specified after that, try changeing it to:
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost.loopback localhost

Ok, set.

> And and map `loopback' in '/etc/networks' as well, ie:
> 127.0.0.0 loopback
> (Not you can use some other matching bogus name (like `lo') if you want.)

I have a different format:

loopback 127.0.0.0
localnet 193.204.161.0

> And add that network adress adress mapping to `networks' as well.

Like my localnet?

> Make sure: `/etc/HOSTNAME' is set to `quantum.dia.uniroma3.it'.
> If you want some other hostname setup a `dummy' interface (in `rc.inet1')
> and add a mapping for that to `hosts' and `networks' also.

Yes, it is.

> Try setting this to:
> hosts: files dns

Set.

> I dunno if it helps much but fix what i pointed out first.
> If no others connect to your local X server, try forceing it to use Unix
> domain sockets, ie: "startx -- -nolisten tcp"
> (If you don't already.)

Is there some global option I can set? I mean, something that works in
runlevel 4. No TCP should speed up everything.

>>66 = UDMA 2
>>69 = UDMA 5
>
> Ok, didn't know that (as i don't explicitly specify it).
> Thanks.
>
> Does your drive actually support that?

Yes:

UDMAx --> -X (64 + x)

MDMAx --> -X (32 + x)

> root@desktop:/home/menno# hdparm -i /dev/hda |grep udma
> UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5

Good. You can set -X69.

> Well, you shouldn't have to feet the kernel that in anyways.
> You might want to try something like this though:
> append="ide0=autotune hda=autotune"

Autotune... nice.

> But you can feed it "ide0=ata66" and so on as well.
> (I think UDMA5 is 100 BTW, not sure.)

Yes, UDMA5 is ATA100 --- UDMA6 is ATA133.

So, I can have:

hdc = ide-scsi hdd = ide-scsi ide0 = ata100 ide1 = ata100

--
Sensei <mailto:senseiwa:tin.it> <icq:241572242>

But still I fear, and still I dare not
Laugh at the mad man (The Prophet's song)

Sensei wrote:
> Menno Duursma wrote:
>
>> This is incorrect syntax, the IP-addy should be mapped to
>> the FQDN and any aliases specified after that, try changeing
>> it to:
>>
>> 127.0.0.1 localhost.loopback localhost
>
> Ok, set.

You don't need all of that for the localhost. All you need is this:

127.0.0.1 localhost

Why add "localhost.loopback" when that is what the "127.0.0.1"
IP, as well as "localhost" is for. Don't go breaking things like
that.

If you want to add aliases you would add new lines.

192.168.1.1 host.domain.com host host1

--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with The Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org/
Slackware 9.1.0 Kernel 2.4.22 i686 (GCC) 3.3.1
Uptime: 5 days, 18:20, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.02, 1.02