Re: X performance

yosefmeller_at_netscape.net.il
Date: 08/16/03 

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:46:23 +0300

> Hi all,
> My system is running Intel Pentium 500MHz with 80MB RAM. I have NT4
> and RedHat8 installed on my system. I noticed windows performs much
> faster than X in RedHat. The applications takes a bit longer to load
> under linux as compared to in NT. I use 160MB swap space for linux.
> What seems to be the problem? Why is there a difference in
> performance? And sometimes Netscape closes by itself under my linux X.
>
> Any suggestions for improving performance?

This is because in Linux, the graphic interface loads last, so it drops into
(slow) swap instead of (fast) RAM like in windows. More swap wouldn't do
any good in that case. Possible suggestions:

a) Change /etc/inittab to load X first (probably not healthy)

b) See how many login sessions (called mingetty / getty, something different
ending with tty) are launched at init time, in the same file. Cut them down
in runlevels that use X (on redhad the default runlevel for that is 5)

c) Disable some of the services that run on init time using chkconfig

d) Use a lightweight window manager instead of Gnome/KDE (DedHat's default
is Gnome)

g) Remove hardware load from your ram (e.g. get a display adapter with its
own memory)

f) Get more RAM

I had the same problem with my Pentium II 300Mhz, 64Mb RAm
I did b, c and g and it helped a lot, but I finally persuaded my dad to help
me out on f, so now I'm ok... :)

Hope this helps.

Yosef Meller

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RH9 Poor performance, stability
    ... how much memory do most people recommend for XP? ... Minimum ram and "completely unacceptable performance" are just as nebulous ... Linux users who've experienced the same performance problems as I have ... >>or even Windows, rather than extremely bloated down like Linux. ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: RH9 Poor performance, stability
    ... how much memory do most people recommend for XP? ... Minimum ram and "completely unacceptable performance" are just as nebulous ... Linux users who've experienced the same performance problems as I have ... >>or even Windows, rather than extremely bloated down like Linux. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Available RAM - Lying sack of SHIT
    ... 4GB RAM installed but I am told Vista can only manage 3GB RAM. ... If you use Linux then your programs won't ... Your WINDOWS programs, slick. ... On the bill I say 75 hours and give a price. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: Available RAM - Lying sack of SHIT
    ... 4GB RAM installed but I am told Vista can only manage 3GB RAM. ... If you use Linux then your programs won't ... Your WINDOWS programs, slick. ... Last week you said that you knew how I spent my money. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: Available RAM - Lying sack of SHIT
    ... Bill Yanaire, ESQ wrote: ... 4GB RAM installed but I am told Vista can only manage 3GB RAM. ... If you use Linux then your programs won't ... Your WINDOWS programs, slick. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)