JonEberger Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 likewise, senor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcal Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Mandriva ROX in most categories except speed. I use a removable hard disk system that allows me to A <=> B <=> C <=> X hard drives (HD) with different and varied Operating Systems on exactly the same computer platform. I have a legal copy of WinBlows Home on exactly the same model and size ( Maxtor 80GB ) hard drive as one of my Test/Scratch drives. The removable rack system is from Kingwin. WinBlows XP Home is quicker to boot to a working desktop then Mandriva 10.2, about the same as 2005 LE. 2006 is clearly faster to a working desktop and 2006.1.0.3 screams to a working desktop in about half the time that WinBlows does. Be very careful on measuring speed to applications. If you have enough DRAM that is not being used the first time you open that app big parts of it will get put into cache so the next time you open it it'll seem to open immediately. Your being fooled. WinBlows will do that as well as Mandriva. The best way I have found to measure time to a working version of an application on an OS is to execute a warm boot to desktop then execute the app. Measure that time not any subsequent times you open the same app. Another factor here is available DRAM cache and/or a linux swap partition in the HD. Lots of DRAM and available swap will speed things up. I have both in large chunks so it appears everything is running from DRAM. IDE vs. Serial HD's. Unbusy SATA-100/150 drives with 8MB of buffer, some now have 16MB, will scream. So a clunky old OS like WinBlows will seem quicker. If I had a 1971 VW Bug and installed a jet engine in its engine compartment it'd run pretty fast too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonEberger Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 If I had a 1971 VW Bug and installed a jet enginein its engine compartment it'd run pretty fast too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanes Posted January 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Wow. I uninstalled KAT, still Konqueor is not even close to explorer. Boot up isn't even comparable to winxp (I dual boot), winxp beats it by about 2 seconds.... Notepad is much faster than kwrite, firefox(xp) has a slight edge on firefox(linux). I'm not complaining, cause I will take the speed hit to legally use the apps I need but... I can't beleive it. Everyone I know who uses Linux, has the same speed issue as me... Only people I have met through this board diasagree. This is really the first time I have considered I might be doing something wrong. PS I have 1 gig swap, 700 megs ram.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) lets have a look at your hard drive is dma activated? hdparm -iv /dev/hda check throughput hdparm -Tt /dev/hda edit: have a look at this link too: https://mandrivausers.org/index.php?showtopic=30341&hl= Edited January 18, 2006 by daniewicz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Wow. I uninstalled KAT, still Konqueor is not even close to explorer. Boot up isn't even comparable to winxp (I dual boot), winxp beats it by about 2 seconds.... Notepad is much faster than kwrite, firefox(xp) has a slight edge on firefox(linux). I'm not complaining, cause I will take the speed hit to legally use the apps I need but... I can't beleive it. Everyone I know who uses Linux, has the same speed issue as me... Only people I have met through this board diasagree. This is really the first time I have considered I might be doing something wrong. PS I have 1 gig swap, 700 megs ram.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You might be conceiving speed differently What 'view' are you using in konqueror. If you have icons activated then it might be generating thumbnails and info view counts all the directories and subdirectories so takes some time. Start-up time is inconsequential to me since I only reboot every few months anyway if I change kernel but if it matters to you (and if you are sat there with a stop watch timing it obviously does) then you can disable many of the serives which are not needed as someone else suggested. Linux isn't particualrly fast at boot up because most people don't boot very often (laptop owners excepted) and you almost never need to reboot linux anyway. What linux is at start-up is thorough... so if you have say amarok installed with mysql the mysql is started at startup ... but there is no need for this you can start it when you start amarok... but then starting amorok will take longer. You should also consider how Windows presents itself and how linux does. Windows tends to present half prepared info .. I know when I had XP at work the time to having the desktop and being able to actually use the thing as it ran anti-virus and policies etc. were two different things. Indeed I think it was longer to run all the stuff that starts after the desktop than getting to the desktop in the first place. When I start konquerior it takes something less than a second. It is possible I guess explorer might be faster (my experiecne says not but I had no control over the bloated environemtn in which I used XP not the same hardware) but what are you doing in the milliseconds of difference ? I would think that you may have some configuration problems but possibly also you are used to the Windows way of presenting itself which is to make it lookk like its ready before it really is. If you ever experience the 'ripping' effect when moving Windows for instance this is due to the display being done before its ready. OS-X is the opposite, it fullt renders every page before presenting anything. It is largely a matter of what you are used to as to how you perceive it. An extreme example is say a slow internet page.... If it is presented element by element OR if the engine waits until it has all the elements befopre rendering. Eitherway the page takes the same time (largely due to the modem beig the bottleneck) but depending what you are used to one will seem faster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 There was a "boot test" for speed in ZDNet a while back. Their test was when one could see the desktop. However, others pointed out that a better test was when one could use the desktop. In this test, they discovered that xp boots images but is not usable until several seconds later. Linux didn't boot the images until it was useful, bringing both into a virtual tie. I believed they used SuSE and XP, but I did not look up the article. On a side note, boot up time is only meaningful when one must boot up. Most linux users don't boot! In ither words, they don't give a boot! :lol: Windows users are faced with this issue continually. So the test is a windows type of concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 That is quite true. :) I too only restart my computer when kernel needs to be updated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystified Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Yep same here. I only reboot when I compile a new kernel which is every six to either weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 This is what I posted for someone who was having problems with speed in Mandriva 2006: https://mandrivausers.org/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=221571 this may help you get a bit faster too, providing you aren't using any of the apps I'm disabling services for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanes Posted January 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 daniewicz is my printout: [root@localhost hanes]# hdparm -iv /dev/hda /dev/hda: multcount = 16 (on) IO_support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq = 1 (on) using_dma = 1 (on) keepsettings = 0 (off) readonly = 0 (off) readahead = 256 (on) geometry = 59554/16/63, sectors = 60030432, start = 0 Model=Maxtor 93073H4, FwRev=BAC51KJ0, SerialNo=N4119ZVC Config={ Fixed } RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=57 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=60028319 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120} PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 *udma2 AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled Drive conforms to: ATA/ATAPI-6 T13 1410D revision 0: * signifies the current active mode [root@localhost hanes]# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda /dev/hda: Timing cached reads: 1252 MB in 2.00 seconds = 624.85 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 72 MB in 3.07 seconds = 23.43 MB/sec If you can make anything of this, that would be great. Thanks! Hanes About the other users who commented on speed: Yeah, I studied benchmarking, I know there are different way to test speeds. I am not entering my computer in a contest though... I am talking about feel. It FEELS slow. So if you tell me that windows loads the image before, that makes sense, I guess that is why Windows feels a bit faster... Nevertheless I dont reboot very often, only when I go into windows to play a game then come back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Here is what I get with my approximately 2 year old Western Digital. hdparm -iv /dev/hda /dev/hda: multcount = 16 (on) IO_support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq = 1 (on) using_dma = 1 (on) keepsettings = 0 (off) readonly = 0 (off) readahead = 256 (on) geometry = 65535/16/63, sectors = 78165360, start = 0 Model=WDC WD400JB-32ENA0, FwRev=05.03E05, SerialNo=WD-WMAD1J471163 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR>5Mbs FmtGapReq } RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=40 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=8192kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=78165360 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120} PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled Drive conforms to: device does not report version: hdparm -Tt /dev/hda /dev/hda: Timing buffer-cache reads: 1072 MB in 2.00 seconds = 535.28 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 142 MB in 3.02 seconds = 47.04 MB/sec So my disk is running at UDMA 5 (I believe this is the same as ATA-100). Note my buffered disk reads value of 47 MB/sec. Your disk is only at UDMA 2? Either you have a very old disk or something is not set correctly in your BIOS. Note your low buffered disk read of 23.4 MB/sec. Not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanes Posted January 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Your disk is only at UDMA 2? Either you have a very old disk or something is not set correctly in your BIOS. Note your low buffered disk read of 23.4 MB/sec. Not good. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uh... This is an IBM Thinkpad T42 1.7GHz, Pentium M processor. 512 MB Ram. Anyone know whats going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashdamage Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) My 5 year-old Maxtor 20G: # hdparm -iv /dev/hda /dev/hda: multcount = 16 (on) IO_support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq = 1 (on) using_dma = 1 (on) keepsettings = 0 (off) readonly = 0 (off) readahead = 256 (on) geometry = 39703/16/63, sectors = 40020624, start = 0 Model=Maxtor 52049H4, FwRev=DAC10SC0, SerialNo=K40QS1HC Config={ Fixed } RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=57 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=2048kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=40020624 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120} PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled Drive conforms to: ATA/ATAPI-6 T13 1410D revision 0: * signifies the current active mode [root@tim tim]# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda /dev/hda: Timing buffer-cache reads: 1468 MB in 2.00 seconds = 732.28 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 86 MB in 3.03 seconds = 28.42 MB/sec Note that buffer-cache read is pretty fair for an old drive, but buffered disk read is not so hot, only a little better than hane's notebook drive. This is no surprise with a HD this old, and no surprise either for a notebook HD, partially because of their slow 5400rpm speed. Even so, this Linux box is fairly quick. My nearly identical office workstation, running Win2kPro with the usual Windoze speed tips applied, has nothing on this Linux box for speed. That's even though the Win box has a newer, faster HD than my home Linux box, the main difference between the two. Either box 'feels' good. IOW, I'm not convinced hane's perceived slowness is HD-related. Running in umda2 seems outa whack, but his drive appears not to have support for umda5. Nor have I seen convincing evidence to make me think Linux is 'slower' then Win. With any OS, some users just seem to have speed problems. But it seems to me regardless of OS (Win viruli, etc. aside) to usually be something in the configuration. The question is what, and I can't guess beyond what's already been covered here. So, all I can offer hanes is the usual - keep pokin' around, disable all you can, try another Window manager, etc. Maybe try running Memtest86. Edited January 19, 2006 by Crashdamage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Please note that if the hard disk is sata, then dma is always shown as off or unchangeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.