On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:06:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Derek, there is swap... I run "swapon -s" and it gave me exactly the > picture you mentioned, except that swap is hda6, and the size is 979924 > - which I think is close to 1 GB... However, the problem is that "used" > part is zero - why's that?
Compare to a "top" listing, where possibly you are not running things heavily enough to be beating on swap yet. Thus out of this particular swap partition, none of it's used yet. > Can I do something to make linux use it? You'd rather not force it to. swap from disk is about 10 times slower (or worse) than real RAM. It can be used to aid context switches, but there's a word for livign in swapspace - "thrashing" - because the disk makes such busy noises. Please be assured that since it has a priority number at all (moving from -1 as the first, toward minus infinity) that it *will* use it when it needs the swap space. If you are the sort who is convinced that your computer isn't working because it isn't making crunchy noises, take some memory back out of your machine, and accept the speed hit. > Computer is freshly restarted, so may be it is only that there is nothing > yet in memory to dump it to swap? > > Filename Type Size Used Priority > /dev/hda6 partition 979924 0 -1 Yes. > Regarding the speed: I actually rethought it and yes, Linux is not really > slower than win2k - it boots up faster, and it looks like when fully > booted, it uses less memory than windows 2000... However, once Gnome or > particularly KDE is started, then it just turns into hell - I have provided a SHORT FORM and a LONG FORM answer. I think it is important for you to read the long form answer, it may explain some things... so I put the short form at the bottom. The important distinction is between Gnome libraries (under the hood of any single gnome based app) and "the Gnome desktop" (oh, about 8 to 15 small apps trying to start at once, whilst being all singing, all dancing, and painting up a backdrop for you). Likewise any given K/Qt app, and "the K Desktop". > even Abiword starts somehow two-three times slower than MSWord starts in > Windows... Abiword is not trying to compete on speed, that I ever heard. It's trying to re-implement and surpass the feature sets of about a half dozen word processors, MS-Word merely being one of them. And there are some who will take many sacrifices like speed for the free-as-in-modifiable code. Comparing tangelos and oranges. > Evolution starts in probably 10 seconds... I don't use evolution because I think it has more moving parts under the hood than my car. See the short form below for what I do use. > may be it is because those desktop environments and programs are slow > themselves and it does not have to do anything with Debian.. Initial load speed, and speed while in use are two different things. The whole point of both "desktop environments" is that because all the under the hood libraries are shared, after the initial heavy weight on your shoulders even very powerful apps add little to the total memory cost. Contrast every notable app on the planet loading "DLLs" that nobody else has heard about, and don't share, not least because the proprietary corps refuse to license them to each other. > I am a user primarily, so I noticed the slowness of the overall performance > when compared taks-by-task Linux vs. Windows Okay. I have decided to compare Car versus Motorcycle. (no slight to vehicle fans, I feel that these each have advantages and disads, thus makes an ok analogy). I am wondering why Motorcycle looks sexier but is not as fast as Car but Motorcycle seems more efficient. Vehicular fans of Motorcycle start asking what brand you are using, offering engine tuneup questions/advice, and wonder if you bought a racing bike or a motocross-country dirt bike. Vehicular fans of Car note that pulling 120 on the open highway isn't the same as gas mileage, how did you want to define "efficient". As for sexy, plenty of sexy cars around, but what do *you* mean by it? > and my subjective perception was that Linux is appreciably slower... "Linux" as in the default kit given you by what? In normal Debian, there pretty much is no "default kit" - you can pick tasks, somewhat, but there are a limited number of them and we don't presume to know what you want to do with your life. In Libranet the "default kit" - about 5 or 6 hundred megs of bits that just copy themselves across before the initial reboot, and certainly enough to "hit the internet" with - which I mention 'cuz it's a commercial Debian based distro and works with laptops - does not contain either Gnome or K as desktops. It offers them as kits, as well as apache and a few other things as kits, during your first boot up, but you don't need them. You can add the libs later, but more likely when you pick an app that you *want* ... let's say "kfirewall" or "everybuddy" which is a gnome chat app ... then only the libs you need will be added in for you, by magic of the depends features in APT. As for during the apps being loaded, DLL's and linux .so files are much the same. They're designed to be shared, but that can only happen if apps call on the same ones. This is something that Linux (as a general community) has got pretty much standardized, and MSwin (as a "community" of businesses with proprietary interests) gets very limited benefit from. Windows, of course, comes in default kits which are fairly similar across the board, but there are still some questions. For instance some manufacturers (quite large ones esp.) have the right to tune MS' code to make it run more perfectly on their system. They may have done so. You may even be running office apps with some features off that normally hog a lot of memory, e.g. macro support, the source of 70+ percent of the world's computer viruses. Go read the Linuc Gazette back issues (www.linuxgazette.com) for some more in-depth detail on deciding what you want in your distribution, to help you pick things like what apps you want and so on. It's a much broader question than whether you "hate Linux" or "find Linux slow" - because "Linux" is a broader matter than that. But if you want a commercially-tuned-up version, you could seek out a laptop manufacturer that preloads Linux (Emperor, QL1Tech, a few others) or a <plug>consultant that will take your specs and prepare a tuned install for you</plug>. If you don't know what you do want, though, I suspect said consultants (and there are many, you can check the LinuxPorts site) cannot satisfy you. This would not be because of their talent or lack, or Linux' features or lack, but because you may not know what satisfactory or even excellent looks like when you see it. THE MEDIUM FORM I use an fvwm based desktop, where I have customized the "FvwmButtons" to offer my favorite items and menus. Combined with debian's package "menu" that auto-generates links to almost every app installed, the result looks very usable and nice at waaaaaaaay less resource consumption than "the desktops". FvwmButtons has "swallow an app" ability and that's all I ever needed out of K's little panel anyway. Give me an xterm and I can launch gnomecc or the k control app only when I need them to tweak apps from those sets. And for the most part I stick with Gtk based rather than "full Gnome" apps, so a few less .so files load up. When I'm feeling like glitz I use enlightenment with a very lightweight theme I adjusted myself from other themes. The important thing seems to be keep the total number of bits for images down. I only load apps when I want to use them, and I close them when I don't want them up. Just as true in MSwin all those years ago and a habit that makes life a good thing when your laptop only has 96 M memory max. THE SHORT FORM Use fvwm and its buttons. Much better :) If you want my consulting services, drop me a line privately; say "consulting" in the subject or you may not get spotted right away. * Heather Stern * star@ many places... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
