ubuntu/kubuntu is sloooooooow!
yorvik.ubunto at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 14 08:26:46 UTC 2007
Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 01:23 +0300, metin wrote:
>> I can't give specific numbers regarding performance (I did not make any
>> benchmarking) but when you use a system it is immediately evident
>> whether it is fast performing or not.
> In any case it is important to know in which way a system underperforms,
> otherwise it is impossible to pinpoint the reason. For example, I have
> learned that you are interested in desktop performance (responsiveness)
> and not server performance (throughput)
>> For example, when you click the
>> k-menu (kde) or gnome-menu it takes up to two seconds for the menu to
>> come up in (k)ubuntu while it is instantaneous in archlinux or pardus.
> I have not seen this on slower machines than yours. I also doubt that
> archlinux or pardus add Gnome or KDE performance patches. Does the
> delay only happen the first time you open the menu, when the entries
> have to be read from disk? (The menu should then be cached and open
> instantly for later accesses).
>> This is more or less valid in every desktop operation. I am using all
>> linuxes on the same machine so my system's specs are not relevant.
> It really ticks me off when people ask for help, and when I am asking
> needed information to diagnose the problem, they tell me I don't need
> that. If you are so smart, why do you ask in the first place, go
> investigate yourself.
> The system specs certainly are relevant. If your system were
> bottlenecking on RAM, it would have a different impact on performance
> than a slow disk, for example. You DID talk about "older systems" in
> your OP, but the one you listed does not fall into that category, IMHO.
> The most likely difference in archlinux or pardus (not knowing those
> particular distros) is that they mount the disks with the noatime
> options. This can speed up disk access a lot. Just add "noatime" to the
> mount options in /etc/fstab and remount.
> There was recently a discussion about this on lkml, see here:
> Another possibility (if HD access is really the problem) is that DMA is
> not set correctly.
Do all the distros use the same HD format?
In my experience ubuntu is a tad more sluggish than other distros
'straight from the box' especially in machines with <512 RAM but, after
twiddling things to my liking they're all much-of-a-muchness. Those
that use Reiserf as their default HD format are still quick obviously
and ubuntu does appear to need that bit more RAM compared to some other
More information about the ubuntu-users