| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: [SOLVED]How to get Gentoo responsive? (or optimizing KDE) |
 |
|
I own a fast computer (amd64 3000 with 1024mb DDR). I notice however that Gentoo behaves sluggish when multitasking. What I also find really annoying is the long time it takes to start programs such as the opera webbrowser. I use KDE 3.5 and would prefer to keep using KDE instad of a lighter wm because KDE provides me the some (actually more) functionality as WinXP. Here's what I did so far to optimize my system:
Enabeled dma
Enabeled prelinking (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/prelink-howto.xml)
Set the correct CFlags (32-bit) (http://gentoo-wiki.com/Safe_Cflags)
Off course 3d acceleration is enabeled
I use the CK kernel
I don't know what I can do more to boost Gentoo's multitasking performance and applications speedup. I hope you guys have some suggestions!
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered
Last edited by Kasumi_Ninja on Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:04 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xalan
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 190
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In kernel config, make your kernel preemptible
| Code: |
-> Processor type and features
-> Preemption Model
|
to make it low latency for desktop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the suggestion! I checked my kernelconfig Preemptible Kernel was already enabeled though:
| Code: | ( ) No Forced Preemption (Server)
( ) Voluntary Kernel Preemption (Desktop)
(X) Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)
|
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have also trouble deleting large files (1GB) from my fat32 partition. This tends to freeze my entire system 
Edit: Doing several things together (unpacking a rar file, playing music, starting a program) also renders my system useless which can be really frustrating 
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered
Last edited by Kasumi_Ninja on Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enverex
Guru
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 501
Location: Worcester, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Are your drives IDE? If so then make sure you have DMA enabled (using hdparm). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have hdparm enabeled for al my drives.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhave
Apprentice
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Still outside the Matrix ...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xalan wrote: | In kernel config, make your kernel preemptible
| Code: |
-> Processor type and features
-> Preemption Model
|
to make it low latency for desktop. |
Is there any conceivable advantage to making my kernel preemptible if I have just a single CPU and if that CPU is a Pentium 3 850MHz? I compiled an SMP kernel and it runs fine, but I get a message on boot saying "SMP motherboard not detected". I'm guessing that an SMP kernel is of no use for me, right?
_________________
This space available! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enverex
Guru
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 501
Location: Worcester, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SMP means multiprocessor (Symetrical MultiProcessing, I think). It doesn't do any harm on single processor machines, but is pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhave
Apprentice
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Still outside the Matrix ...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NightShade737 wrote: | | SMP means multiprocessor (Symetrical MultiProcessing, I think). It doesn't do any harm on single processor machines, but is pointless. |
That's what I figured, but from reading the posts above I wondered if there might be some sort of boost even for single-CPU systems. I guess not.
_________________
This space available! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackEdder
Advocate
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 2588
Location: Dutch enclave in Egham, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It sounds like the slugginess has to do with hard drive access. What are your hdparm speeds?
| Code: | | hdparm -tT /dev/hda |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's hdparm -tT /dev/hda
| Code: | /dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 2016 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1008.24 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 112 MB in 3.02 seconds = 37.08 MB/sec |
And here hdparm -tT /dev/hdb:
| Code: | /dev/hdb:
Timing cached reads: 2000 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1000.21 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 128 MB in 3.07 seconds = 41.69 MB/sec |
I don't know much about these figures, but the speed appears to be ok. Hoever deleting an 1GB file from hdb (fat32) results in a dialog box that is open forever and freezes my pc. When I do a shift+del I don't have this problem.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
electrofreak
l33t
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 713
Location: Ohio, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhapes you could try a 64-bit installation to see if that improves anything.
_________________
Desktop: ABit AN8, Athlon64 X2 4400+ 939 2.75GHz, 2x1GB Corsair XMS DDR400, 2x160GB SATA RAID-0, 2x20"W, Vista Ultimate x64
Laptop: 15.4" MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz, 2x1GB RAM, 160GB, Mac OS X 10.5.1
Server: PIII 550Mhz, 3x128MB RAM, 160GB, Ubuntu Server 7.10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I did a fresh install fo debian etch (grml.org) and used time to measure the differences bewteen Gentoo and Debian. Here are the results:
Gentoo
time opera
| Code: | real 0m9.202s
user 0m5.306s
sys 0m0.258s |
Debian
| Code: | time opera
real 0m7.124s
user 0m2.060s
sys 0m0.124s |
Conclusion. Debian Etch with a 386 kernel is faster thank my optimized Gentoo  What's going on here???
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's some more results:
Debian
time konqueror
| Code: | real 0m3.160s
user 0m1.496s
sys 0m0.016s |
Gentoo
time konqueror
| Code: | real 0m3.099s
user 0m1.393s
sys 0m0.050s
|
Debian
time ooffice2 -writer
| Code: | real 0m4.669s
user 0m2.120s
sys 0m0.064s |
Gentoo
time ooffice2 -writer
| Code: | real 0m4.784s
user 0m2.289s
sys 0m0.127s
|
Debian
time firefox
| Code: | real 0m3.309s
user 0m0.912s
sys 0m0.056s |
Gentoo
time firefox
| Code: | real 0m3.143s
user 0m1.222s
sys 0m0.098s
|
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voytas
Apprentice
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 203
Location: Poland, Lodz
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you are comparing just startup times...
is it really what you want?
do you start your apps only to close them
compare their working speed not startup time 
_________________
LAPTOP: ThinkPad T530 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BitJam
Advocate
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 2508
Location: Silver City, NM
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dhave wrote: | | Is there any conceivable advantage to making my kernel preemptible if I have just a single CPU and if that CPU is a Pentium 3 850MHz? |
There will be a significant advantage to using preemption on a slower system.
Preemption and SMP are two different things. Preemption allows userland programs to interrupt kernel code. With preemption enabled, your system should respond more quickly to keyboard and mouse events.
As for the overall system slowness that started this thread, I think the problem could probably be related to using a fat32 file system. People didn't develop JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, Ext3, NTFS, etc., etc. because they had a lot of free time and nothing better to do. These file systems were created because of problems with the existing file systems. Fat32 is a crappy, low performance file system. It would not be surprising if you got severe performance problems when doing disk intensive activities on fat32. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BitJam wrote: | | dhave wrote: | | Is there any conceivable advantage to making my kernel preemptible if I have just a single CPU and if that CPU is a Pentium 3 850MHz? |
There will be a significant advantage to using preemption on a slower system.
Preemption and SMP are two different things. Preemption allows userland programs to interrupt kernel code. With preemption enabled, your system should respond more quickly to keyboard and mouse events.
As for the overall system slowness that started this thread, I think the problem could probably be related to using a fat32 file system. People didn't develop JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, Ext3, NTFS, etc., etc. because they had a lot of free time and nothing better to do. These file systems were created because of problems with the existing file systems. Fat32 is a crappy, low performance file system. It would not be surprising if you got severe performance problems when doing disk intensive activities on fat32. |
There you have a good point. I also tried to set the 'noatime' setting in fstab, but this didn't do much
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brazzmonkey
Guru
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 372
Location: between keyboard and chair
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the thread they are an interesting read.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered
Last edited by Kasumi_Ninja on Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I replaced the fat32 parttions with an optimized ext3 (https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-305871-highlight-ext2+tune2fs.html). And the performance difference is HUGE. No more freezes etc. Sometimes the most obvious solution is the best one.  Thanks for helping all!
Edit: Besides swapping fat32 for ext3 I also recompiled KDE with LDFlags setting in make.conf
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think this thread should renamed to 'getting KDE more responsive'. After working some time with KDE and fluxbox I notice that the sluggish feeling of my high end system is for 90% caused by KDE. Are there good threads or sites available to optimize KDE? There also exist a KDE light, any chance we see this in portage?
KDElight:
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=425&slide=1
http://www.gnulinux.de/pocketlinux/index.php/Main/WhyKDELight
Any tips, trick and cheats to optimize KDE is welcome!
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Other Things Gentoo
