On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 07:18:08AM -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:16:21PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > > > >>On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 13:09:55 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I have a HP Pavilion dv8000z laptop with a 2.0 ghz AMD Turion, a gig of > >>>ram, and dual 80 gig hard drives. > >>> > >>>I have tried to install the AMD 64 version of Sarge twice on this > >>>machine. Both times it has been so slow I've given up and installed the > >>>32 bit version of Sarge. I just did, or should say attempted, an 64 bit > >>>install today. It took 55 minutes to do a base install from a > >>>netinstall cd, 10 minutes of which it spent on just loading the > >>>kernel-image package. I can complete a default 32 bit Sarge desktop > >>>install in approximately the same amount of time. > >>> > >>>I started my install at 11:15 this morning, it is now 12:59, and the > >>>system is just now unpacking the downloads for a default desktop > >>>install. That's 1 3/4 hours and it hasn't even begun setting up > >>>packages yet. This install will probably take at least 3 hours to > >>>complete, if not more. > >>> > >>>Anyone know why this is so slow? I would have completed the same > >>>default desktop bit install an hour ago on this machine if I had > >>>installed the 32 bit version of Sarge. Running 32 bit sarge or sid this > >>>laptop is every bit the equal of my 32 bit desktop machines of similar > >>>cpu speed even though it only has 4200 rpm hard drives and my desktops > >>>have 7200 rpm hard drives. > >>> > >>>The 64 bit version of Debian makes this thing crawl. It takes at least > >>>8 - 10 seconds to open Firefox. The 32 bit install opens Firefox in > >>>less than 1/2 the time. > >>> > >>> > >>Maybe the 64 bit install has a problem with DMA; that can cost you a > >>factor 10 in harddrive access times. You can check this with "hdparm". > >> > >>-- > >>Regards, > >> Florian > >> > >> > > > >I had trouble with extreme sloth of an AMD64 install; using an > >installer with a more recent kernel seemed to improve things. > >I don't know what the problem was. With the slow installer I never got > >as far as running the system, though. God it was *slow*! > > > >-- hendrik > > > > > > > > > > Hendrik, > > I tried etch the first time I tried a pure 64 bit installation. I > didn't have any better luck with it than I did with sarge. Glad to > know it isn't just my machine that has problems with this though. Just > out of curiosity, what kernel did you use that worked? >
The one in Len Sorenson's netinstall disk. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls /boot boot.0200 initrd.img-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic boot.0300 map coffee.bmp sarge.bmp config-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic sid.bmp debian.bmp System.map-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic debianlilo.bmp vmlinuz-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic grub [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
