Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- From: Dances With Crows <danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:40:03 -0600
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:54:57 +0100, dagecko staggered into the Black Sun
and said:
> Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:38:21 -0600, Dances With Crows wrote:
>> Option "NvAGP" "1" # use evil built-in AGP support, which is probably
>> # faster than agpgart or no AGP at all
> No, let the driver choose it for you, it's best.
Er, no. If you've built your kernel with agpgart support, and you let
the evil binary-only module decide what to do, it'll use agpgart, which
is slower than the built-in support. Or it'll write something like
"cannot use AGP because of $ERROR, falling back to PCI mode..." to
syslog. I've had both of those things happen.
> Your problems do not concern the nvidia drivers, neither agp.
The OP, linux1234, had problems with *slow* *graphics* *performance*.
The xorg.conf file is the first place to check. The things I saw there
were the "fbdevhw" line, the lack of DPMS and AGP, and the 24 instead of
16 bit depth. All of those things are worth checking out.
Also, the OP should do "glxinfo | grep vendor" and make sure that he
gets strings that say "NVIDIA Corporation". It's possible to install
nvidia-kernel without nvidia-glx, although if you do that, X should
complain loudly when you start it. If you try to run with Driver
"nvidia" and the Mesa GLX libraries, things will be a lot slower than
they should be.
> For speeding up things you still can do many things: trying to
> [lighten] the kernel as much as you can.
False economy. linux1234 is probably not ready to build a custom kernel
yet, and the default "everything modular, compiled for i686" kernels
that modern distros ship are fast enough.
> don't need (check /etc/init.d directory), use a lightweight desktop
> (again gnome and kde are heavy stuff believe me, kde 1 worked better
> on an amd 300 than kde 3 on an amd 1600+ !!)
KDE 3 (built from source with decent CFLAGs, prelinked) works fine on a
PIII-900. (KDE 1 was slow on a P150 with 48M, though.) *Most* of the
things started from the SysV init scripts won't consume enormous amounts
of resources if they don't get used. They'll just get swapped out.
Things like Oracle or DB/2 are the main exception, but few people run
those on their laptops.
linux1234 may be seeing anacron run updatedb within 15 minutes of
startup if his laptop usage patterns are "normal" and he's running
anacron. updatedb does a *lot* of I/O and will slow things down while
it's running. You can stop updatedb from running by modifying the cron
entries in /etc/cron.daily/ , but then you lose the ability to get good
results from locate. Your call.
> Also try to use another window manger, gdm, kdm are more heavy than
> xdm.
? gdm, kdm, and xdm aren't window managers. They're login managers.
kdm has an RSS of 724K and CPU consumed of 0:00 here, which is
*trivial* compared to the konsole I'm running. (22060K RSS, 6:54 CPU
time, not as bad as it looks because it's been running since ~December
29.)
> Also as I said try to check your dma with hdparm.
"hdparm -d1 -u1 -c1 -m16 /dev/hd[a-d]" should be executed at boot time
on all IDE devices newer than about 1999. If DMA wasn't on, linux1234
would've complained about slow disk access as well as slow graphics
performance. He didn't do that IIRC.
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong
http://www.brainbench.com / "He is a rhythmic movement of the
-----------------------------/ penguins, is Tux." --MegaHAL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- From: dagecko
- Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- References:
- Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- From: dagecko
- Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- Prev by Date: Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- Next by Date: Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- Previous by thread: Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- Next by thread: Re: Geforce2go slow: worth upgrading?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading