Try this: find the PIDs of your X-server, your window manager, and your file manager.
After X-Windows starts, for each PID, run as root: renice -20 WHATEVERTHATPIDWAS And see how that helps. There's a way to do this automatically on startup, but it depends on how you are doing logins (xdm, gdm, startx, etc). Jon On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Brad wrote: > I have been using Linux on the desktop at work and home for the past 18 > months and I really like it. However, at times it is woefully slow to do > anything. > > ==================================================================== > Current work PC specification: > > Duron 1.3 > 256Mb RAM > 512Mb swap space > 30Gb 5400RPM IDE HDD with no slave device > Red Hat 9 (Shrike) Workstation installation and all current updates > 2.4.20-18.9 kernel > > Time comparisons are between the Red Hat box and another PC on my desk > running Win2K with Celeron 900, 256K RAM and 5400RPM 30Gb HDD and no slave > device. > > No performance tweaking of either OS has been performed. > > Typical usage has 4 or 5 windows open running Galeon, Gnome-terminal, > Xchat, gFTP etc, and I have timed the following. Note: these are typically > "cold-load" times and are not cached due to a recent load action. > > Starting OpenOffice Writer 1.02 on Shrike can sometimes take OVER A > MINUTE, which is ridiculous. > Word97 on Win2K takes around 5 seconds to start. > > Evolution (my chosen email client, running imap) on Shrike takes nearly 40 > seconds to start and become usable, and often up to 15 seconds to close. I > have not been able to compare to Outlook, but Evolution seems to cause > serious havoc with Red Hat as it consumes a lot of resources and causes > large slow-downs at times. I have a suspicion that the imap server/mail > protocol may be at fault as POP does seem a little happier. > > Kmail 1.5 on Shrike takes around 50 seconds from start to becoming usable. > Outlook Express 6 on Win2K takes about 6 seconds to become usable. > > Mozilla 1.2.1 on Shrike takes 23 seconds to start and become usable. > Mozilla 1.3a on Win2K takes less than 10 seconds. This is a new startup and > not using the preload of Mozilla under Windows. > > Mozilla Mail 1.21 on Shrike takes about 13 seconds. > Mozilla Mail 1.3a on Win2K takes about 6 seconds. This is a new startup and > not using the preload of Mozilla under Windows. > > Nautilus 2.2.1 on Shrike takes around 30 seconds to become usable. > Windows Explorer on Win2K takes around 4 seconds to load and be usable. > ==================================================================== > > The HD light is usually on hard as applications load, indicating heavy use > of the swap file. > > These are fairly typical figures and you can see a clear and consistant > speed difference between the two systems. At times, if I have a few extra > windows open, Linux is just unusable as it swaps heavily to the hard disk. > At these times, I often just go and get a coffee as it can sometimes take > MINUTES to recover. Yes, it is a very stable OS and basically never > actually "crashes" - at least not in the Windows sense. But I have found > that applications like Evolution do crash and/or become unusable far too > often, and this constant HD swapping is VERY wearisome, as I often have to > wait until the system catches up with me before I can go on. By > comparison, the other PC on my desk running Win2K doesn't suffer from > these annoying lags AT ALL in my experience so far (~12 months). > > With the exception of Evolution, once these applications are cached the > system does run a little better, but still not quite as well as Win2K with > cached applications. Evolution with imap doesn't run "easily" any time > from my experience. > > I have read of some application loading speed improvements in the Linux > 2.6 kernel, so perhaps that may make a difference. It will need to, as I > have been trying to get Linux into my workplace, but I know that the > majority of the staff will be unhappy with the performance as it currently > stands. > > My desktop experience extends from 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and now 9. They have all > been pretty standard Workstation installlations with no tweaking at all, > and they have all been patched with the current updates, and they have all > exhibited the same slow-speed problem. > > The above times are taken on my work PC. At home I have an > XP2000/512Mb/Voodoo III 3500 and it is a little better, but still somewhat > slower than my wife's Win98/256K/Duron 1300 PC. > > >From my viewpoint, Linux may be ready for the desktop from an application > support/availability perspective, but it is certainly not ready from a > speed perspective. > > The server is a much different story, and I have been installing it since > 5.1. Without the overhead of a GUI, it is an EXCELLENT platform and why > anyone would choose Windows over Linux on the server is a mystery to me. > > I would welcome any comments/advice/hints as I am really committed to > Linux and Red Hat and *really* don't like Windows any more as it's so > limiting. > > Regards, > Brad > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
