VectorLinux
September 17, 2014, 05:21:15 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: [Solved] Installation Recommendations?  (Read 3434 times)
imchairmanm
Member
*
Posts: 4


« on: August 07, 2007, 11:35:09 am »

Hello,
      I was looking for some recommendations regarding which options to choose or any advice that could be given that would help me install Vector Linux better.  I already have it installed, but because my machine is quite old and because I'm afraid I might have chosen some wrong things during installation, my computer crawls at a snails pace and I can't really do anything useful without waiting about three minutes for a window to show up or close.  So I'm thinking this is probably my mistake and I'm wondering if there are any specail settings that I could adjust during or after installation.  Currently, I'm running VL 5.8-standard-gold.  I followed the instructions in the documentation, but I think I must have made a mistake.

My Specs are:

Pentium III (1 GHz)
128 MB SDRAM
40 GB hard drive

Tell me if I need to give you any more information. Thanks in advance for the help!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2007, 07:23:07 pm by imchairmanm » Logged
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2504



« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2007, 11:40:06 am »

i think there is definately something wrong there, vl should be pretty fast on that box i would think.

how is your drive partitioned?
what format did you choose?
Logged
easuter
Global Moderator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2160



« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2007, 12:12:19 pm »

Do you have udma enabled on that drive?
Logged

lagagnon
Global Moderator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 1922



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2007, 01:15:57 pm »

uelsk8s is correct: it should be very fast on that machine - besides udma is that a western digital hard drive and if so if it is the only hard drive in that machine did you ensure the jumper is removed for "single" operation - because if you don't you can get VERY slow response such as that.
Logged

"As people become more intelligent they care less for preachers and more for teachers". Robert G. Ingersoll
nubcnubdo
Vectorian
****
Posts: 675


« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2007, 02:37:13 pm »

VL 5.8 Std is very fast on a 1 GHz computer. Does it shut down properly, or does it hang and not cut off? If it won't shut down you might add "acpi=force" as an extra boot parameter when prompted during the re-install.
Choose ext3 as your file system. Linux swap partition should be around 500 MB. You might wanna double your RAM, because 128 MB is a bit low, but that doesn't account for the sluggishness you report.
Logged
imchairmanm
Member
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2007, 06:15:01 pm »

Hello everybody,
    Thanks for the replies! I actually got it figured out and it was something stupid on my part. Somehow the settings got messed up and it was opening multiple window managers on F7 through F9 on startup. I got it fixed though. Thanks for your help and sorry to waste your time!
Logged
exeterdad
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2046



« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2007, 05:31:09 am »

Wow, that would explain the poor performance!  Glad you got it straightened out.  So....  How does that 1 gz run now?  I have a 1gz as well.  It's true VL doesn't run as fast as it did on my dearly departed 2.4 gz, but I can't complain at all about the performance on this 1 gz.

nubcnubdo:

You said to use ext3.  I'm using reiserfs (I've no clue why).  Could I expect better performance with ext3?
Logged
Joe1962
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2499



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2007, 05:58:16 am »

You said to use ext3.  I'm using reiserfs (I've no clue why).  Could I expect better performance with ext3?
I really don't think so.
Logged

O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."
http://joe1962.bigbox.info
Running: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10
wcs
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1144


« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2007, 05:42:48 pm »

Quote
Could I expect better performance with ext3?

After consulting some benchmarks, I've decided on reiser as well.
But who knows... some benchmarks also show different results, use different tests, measure different things.

Apparently, reiser can give you a boost for large numbers of small files.
Mostly, I just went to reiser because of something I read on the gentoo documentation.

(Although, personally, I'm getting tired of all this performance tuning... I know my processor is fast and my hard drive is slow, and that more RAM makes my work and fun more pleasant. Other than that, I find myself wasting time making changes that have no effect other than a placebo one)
Logged
Joe1962
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2499



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2007, 05:48:52 pm »

FWIW, I detected a pretty noticeable slowdown when I decided to reformat and try ext3 for a time in a previous life... err... laptop, lol. It was a 2.8 GHz P4 (non-HT) with 512 MB RAM and 40 GB 5400 RPM HDD.
Logged

O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."
http://joe1962.bigbox.info
Running: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10
Vxt
Member
*
Posts: 86


« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2007, 07:47:15 pm »

All is well that ends.......  Grin well ?

To find out cause of resource hog - the usual method is to run
Code:
top
&/or
Code:
ps ax

Then the user may use (see "man" pages for all)
Code:
Kill -9
plus the process I.D. number found from using either utility ("top or ps ax")

FWIW ( Wink Hi Joe) there should be little discernible Performance Variation to any
Journalled F/Sys
 -  beit reiser/ext3/xfs, etc.

Robustness may be more due to what caused any file corruption:
Such as hot-key Ctrl+Alt+ Bkspc on running desktop
WHILE apps are still open.

Both reiser & ext3 have own  repair tools

Reiser4 is (arguably) superior - but at a trade-off of benefits.
The jury is still out on that.

In end NO "blanket assertions" may be correctly stated >
All seems to vary by user-tasking contemplated

O.T ~  Much the same applies to:  latency/newer queuing-scheduler & WHY any desktop user
would NEED  real-time mode (save for E.G. music-synthesizing) ?

More Ram is alway a good thing - but cannot compensate for slower
CPU architecture - nor faster bus I/out &  drive devices !

The first gives more buffering cache
The latter faster CPU cycles (most is wasted anyway as top shows.
Huge data transfer needs optimal in/out
Lengthy complicated compiles need CPU power (for those w/more than one box - use distcc)
Logged
Joe1962
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2499



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2007, 09:41:00 pm »

FWIW ( Wink Hi Joe) there should be little discernible Performance Variation to any
Journalled F/Sys
 -  beit reiser/ext3/xfs, etc.
Hi Vxt, LTNS. Unfortunately, there are differences, and pretty noticeable ones, too. While probably no FS is fastest in everything, mean performance in real world use is definitely greater in some.
Logged

O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."
http://joe1962.bigbox.info
Running: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10
Vxt
Member
*
Posts: 86


« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2007, 11:28:15 pm »

Yeah - being a lurker is more socially acceptable-
'less it's  in  dark -alleys !

Agreed - often there are real-life useage issues that make us question  "test reports"

Whatever works best for us - the Heck  w/theory - just use it ( I do too > Rieser)

 How's your memory - the post where you found opposite to me
Ext3 was more robust after a File corruption ?

Yet mine convinced me Rieser - (after ext3 failed twice, own Duhhs Re wrong power switch)

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to easily convert 'twixt the choices ?
We can change most anything else - without  the drastic headaches of which file-system
was set_in_stone @ install ! 

BTW - since we strayed off topic  somewhat (sorry)
I'll post some disturbing GPL inferencs to all distros  if I may ?

Best regards
Logged
Joe1962
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2499



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2007, 03:26:13 am »

How's your memory - the post where you found opposite to me
Ext3 was more robust after a File corruption ?

Yet mine convinced me Rieser - (after ext3 failed twice, own Duhhs Re wrong power switch)
Heh, I was talking about speed there, lol. But now that you mention that little incident, it was the perceived slowness of ext3 that brought me back to the ReiserFS fold (though I've dabbled in XFS a bit, after it was included as an option in the installer). Never had a problem since, even inside a vm running in winders, which required the 5 sec power switch pressing (not to mention BSODs) at least 2 or 3 times a week... Grin
Logged

O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."
http://joe1962.bigbox.info
Running: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!