Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie Ryan did opine thusly: > On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote: > > On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > >> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less > >> stable. > > > > Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that > > was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because > > some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At > > least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones. > > Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations, > probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but > maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than > before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's > with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%. > > While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main > problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another > 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is > becoming unbearably slow when memory starved. > > I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does > anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and > speed up the computer? No it will not. It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data structures firefox creates to do it's job. Think of it this way: You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to access a 500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does that have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever. And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says you have 1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and Firefox 180M, together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared. top tells you "amount of memory that this process can access" top does not tell you "amount of memory that this process owns and that nothing else can access" -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András Csányi did opine thusly: > On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less > > stable. > > > > I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, > > AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault > > sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does > > not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. > > Grr. > > Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't > know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom? If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss. It's all in the build elogs. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: > Hi list! > > I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for > breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage > grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. > > The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during > which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at > night. > > free -m > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 > -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 > Swap: 6142 978 5163 > > A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! > > Excerpt from top: > VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox > 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator > 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t > 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices > 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin > 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon > 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner > 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid > 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X > 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok > 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete > 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices > 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop > 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld > 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy > 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices > 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole > 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 > 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. The columns tell you the amount of memory that process can access. This is vitally important to understand. Modern memory managers in all OSes have the concept of shared code and shared memory. It would be insanely wasteful for each process to have it's own copy of all the data in RAM it ever uses. At a minimum, every process would need a full copy of glibc loaded into RAM. Here's what really happens (simplistic version): An app loads, and links to libraries it needs. They may or may not already be in RAM; if nor, they are loaded. Those binary images increase the amount of RAM the process may address. The app uses more RAM for it's own purposes (data it is using) and after a while lots of that data is still in RAM but no longer being used. When things get tight, the kernel has a good long hard look at memory usage and starts chucking bits away that can be dispensed with safely. How much control do you, the user, have over this: none whatsoever. Why: because the situation is changing millions of times a second and there's no way you can keep up. It's like your heart. You don't actually want to be bothered keeping the damn thing pumping consciously. So you let your brain stem do all that heavy lifting. With memory, the kernel is your brain stem. Your numbers above look perfectly normal. Most of that RAM can and will be dumped when something else comes along that needs it. The clincher is your swap usage. After 8 days you are using only about 12% of total which indicates the kernel is quite happily keeping everything under control and still has plenty of wiggle room left to keep you humming along nicely. The only point where this memory scheme goes wrong is when an app has a memory leak - it has finished with some data in RAM and does not release it. The chances that all your "memory hogs" all have leaks like this are very small. Final conclusion: you have nothing to worry about. > > Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since > it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does > Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at > the moment and is just running minimized in the background. > > Virtuoso looks like an optional Soprano dependency which in turn is > needed for Nepomuk. Are the default use flags for dev-libs/soprano > suboptimal? What happens if I choose other flags for Soprano? > > The rest of the list is a bit suspicious, as well. Especially DBus and > Kopete look like they live way beyond their means (or my means ;) ). > > Do other users experience the same? > > Thanks in advance! > Florian Philipp -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
[gentoo-user] Re: KDE ridiculous memory usage
On 09/18/2010 05:45 PM, Florian Philipp wrote: Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 That looks bad. I suspect it's the semantic desktop thingy that's at fault (I guess it's database and indexing service must eat tons of RAM), since I have it disabled and this is how it looks here after 5 days uptime: total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 5973 3534 2438 0 1056 1685 -/+ buffers/cache:793 5179 Swap: 917 0917 (The important value is "-/+ buffers/cache: 793") This is with KDE 4.5.1 and "semantic-desktop" USE flag disabled.
[gentoo-user] Re: KDE ridiculous memory usage
On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 [...] Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his system.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 07:45 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Lie Ryan did opine thusly: On 09/19/10 09:22, Hilco Wijbenga wrote: On 18 September 2010 15:14, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less stable. Indeed. But FF4 is *much* faster. And much more stable. At least, that was my experience when I tried it out. I had to go back to 3.6 because some of the plugins that I need were not yet supported for FF4. At least the later 3.6 releases aren't as unstable as the previous ones. Firefox 4 indeed is smoother (probably due to the new animations, probably because none of the plugins I used are compatible yet, but maybe it is just faster); but it is definitely more memory hungrier than before. In Fx3, it usually took around ~20-25% of my 1GB RAM and that's with opening a bunch lot of pages; Fx4 generally takes around ~25-30%. While taking 30% of my RAM is fine when I'm not multitasking, the main problem is I am always multitasking. With Thunderbird taking another 15-20%, emerge ranging from 5-30%, and X about 5-10%, my computer is becoming unbearably slow when memory starved. I've been thinking about adding -Os (optimize-size) to my CFLAGS, does anyone knows if doing that will possibly bring down memory usage and speed up the computer? No it will not. It's the size of the binary code image that is reduced, you may find that the firefox *code* in memory is smaller too. But it will do nothing for the data structures firefox creates to do it's job. Think of it this way: You have a MySQL instance taking up say 20MB in memory. You use it to access a 500G database so it uses a whopping amount of memory for the indexes. You somehow optimize MySQL so that the code is now 19MB. What effect does that have on the 500G database? Answer: none whatsoever. And you conclusions about memory usage are wrong too. When free says you have 1G or RAM (this is true) and top says Thunderbird uses 150M and Firefox 180M, together they do not use 330M. Much of that memory is shared. top tells you "amount of memory that this process can access" top does not tell you "amount of memory that this process owns and that nothing else can access" Yep. I use Seamonkey which is browser and email all in one. It doesn't use much when I first start it up. The amount it accumulates as time goes on depends on the websites I go to. If I go to sites that have a lot of flash, pictures and gifs, then it starts to using a lot more memory. If I go to say the gentoo forums which is mostly text, it doesn't change much. Just like the example Alan gave, it's not the program itself that is using the memory, it's what you are doing with it that uses memory. I have found that the weather radar site and youtube are the biggest memory hogs. One is flash and the other is video, both of which need a good bit of memory. Changing the compile flags isn't going to stop you from going to certain sites so it won't help on memory usage. This is my Seamonkey with email also open and I have only visited a couple forums sites: 7493 dale 20 0 253m 133m 28m S 0.7 6.6 1:59.65 seamonkey-bin This is the same after going to the weather radar and one youtube music clip: 7493 dale 20 0 331m 177m 33m S 8.6 8.8 3:18.65 seamonkey-bin If I were to visit other sites, it would go up a lot more. If you want to decrease memory usage, don't go to sites that use flash, have a lot of pics and gifs and other things that use a lot of memory. You could do like I do, if it is using a good bit of memory, just close it, wait a few seconds and open it back up again. Nice clean fresh start and unlike windoze, no reboot needed. ;-) I have Firefox 3.6 on here as well. It does about the same as Seamonkey. Starts out not using a lot but builds up as I visit other sites and things start to load up. I can't tell any difference in speed tho. I don't use it a whole lot tho so I may not have noticed it. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE ridiculous memory usage
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 [...] Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his system. This is my free -m: r...@smoker / # free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 2024 1934 89 0380657 -/+ buffers/cache: 896 1127 Swap: 478 0 478 r...@smoker / # I have less memory installed but if I understand this correctly, I have more trouble than he does. This install is a few years old and my rig is several years old. It's been doing fine so far. I'm also using the same KDE. Currently running, KDE, Seamonkey and a nice emerge of a video package. The compile process is using the most memory at the moment. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: KDE ridiculous memory usage
On 09/19/2010 12:15 PM, Dale wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 [...] Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his system. This is my free -m: r...@smoker / # free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 2024 1934 89 0 380 657 -/+ buffers/cache: 896 1127 Swap: 478 0 478 r...@smoker / # I have less memory installed but if I understand this correctly, I have more trouble than he does. Why? It reports 896MB usage vs 3271MB in Florian's system. Looks pretty normal to me.
Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.
On 19 September 2010 10:09, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András > Csányi did opine thusly: > >> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: >> > Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less >> > stable. >> > >> > I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons (xmarks, >> > AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault >> > sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does >> > not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. >> > Grr. >> >> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't >> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S > > > If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom? > > If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss. > It's all in the build elogs. Hi Alan, I have tried to start from terminal, but no message. I have tried to run after revdep-rebuild but nothing. I have installed binary version but the result was the same. After these I have tried strace and if I remenber correctly it stopped with segmentation fault. Unfortunately I can't reproduce this problem because few days ago I changed my system from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here everything is working fine according firefox. I know I should have report it but, that time, I was really tired emotionally. :( -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- "Bízzál Istenben és tartsd szárazon a puskaport!".-- Cromwell
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE ridiculous memory usage
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 09/19/2010 12:15 PM, Dale wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 [...] Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his system. This is my free -m: r...@smoker / # free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 2024 1934 89 0 380 657 -/+ buffers/cache: 896 1127 Swap: 478 0 478 r...@smoker / # I have less memory installed but if I understand this correctly, I have more trouble than he does. Why? It reports 896MB usage vs 3271MB in Florian's system. Looks pretty normal to me. I THINK I read he was up for about 8 days. I had just booted up a little bit ago. Looking at the Mem line, I am using almost all of my memory already. I was also keeping in mind that the OP has about double the memory that I have. I'm just not sure what exactly is wrong with his either. It was more of a question than anything. He is using a lot of swap but that can be adjusted by setting the swappiness file with a lower value IF he wants to do that. I have mine set to 20 or so. I prefer to keep as much in memory as possible but at the same time, I don't want to crash if say GIMP gets a little memory hungry when I open 300 images all at once. I did that once. It took a while. lol I was always told that Linux uses memory a lot better than most other OS's especially M$. Cache as much as possible and run faster which means it will use all the memory at some point. Mine does that way and always has. Since the kernel handles all this, I'm not sure what the OP can do to fix anything unless it is a kernel bug. Then a upgrade may be the sure. I guess? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE ridiculous memory usage
Apparently, though unproven, at 10:54 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Nikos Chantziaras did opine thusly: > On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, > > Florian > > > > Philipp did opine thusly: > >> Hi list! > >> > >> I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for > >> breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage > >> grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. > >> > >> The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during > >> which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at > >> night. > >> > >> free -m > >> > >> total used free shared buffers cached > >> > >> Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 > >> -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 > >> Swap: 6142 978 5163 > >> [...] > > > > Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not > > mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. > > However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and > indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his > system. What specific numbers and what appears to be out of place? -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
[gentoo-user] Re: KDE ridiculous memory usage
On 09/19/2010 01:12 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 10:54 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Nikos Chantziaras did opine thusly: On 09/19/2010 11:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: Hi list! I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime during which the system was on standby most of the time during work days and at night. free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 Swap: 6142 978 5163 [...] Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. However, the values reported by "free -m" are somewhat useful and indicate that something is very wrong with memory consumption on his system. What specific numbers and what appears to be out of place? This: -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
> free -m > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 3588 of 3754 is free, AFAIK not used at all. Plug off 3500 and sell it. If your system is slow maybe from managing all that unusued memory. ;-) Al
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Al wrote: free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 3588 of 3754 is free, AFAIK not used at all. Plug off 3500 and sell it. If your system is slow maybe from managing all that unusued memory. ;-) Al Actually, the 3588 is what is used. The 165 is what is free. Maybe the email program you are using is not lining the columns up properly. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Apparently, though unproven, at 12:37 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Al did opine thusly: > > free -m > > total used free shared buffers cached > > Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 > > 3588 of 3754 is free, AFAIK not used at all. Plug off 3500 and sell it. > > If your system is slow maybe from managing all that unusued memory. ;-) > > Al I think someone needs to go study how linux memory management works, and what buffers and cache really are RULE NUMBER ONE OF LINUX MEMORY: SUPERFICIAL UTILITIES LIKE free WILL *ALWAYS* REPORT ALMOST ALL MEMORY IN USE. REASON: IT *IS* IN USE. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Alan McKinnon writes: > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, > Florian Philipp did opine thusly: > > I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for > > breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage > > grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. > > > > The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime > > during which the system was on standby most of the time during work > > days and at night. > > > > free -m > > > > total used free shared buffers cached > > > > Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 > > -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 > > Swap: 6142 978 5163 > > > > A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! What I forgot to ask: Do you feel the performance becomes bad? Does the system feel more responsive again when you restart KDM and log in again? I don't mind the system growing swap, that's normal, but now, as soon as significant swapping starts, the system becomes slow. I don't know why. > > Excerpt from top: > > VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > > > 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox > > > > 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator > > 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t > > 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices > > 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin > > 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon > > 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner > > 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid > > 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X > > > > 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok > > > > 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete > > 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices > > 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop > > 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld > > 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy > > 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices > > 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole > > 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 > > 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin > > Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not > mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. You gave the example of Thunderbird using 150M and Firefox 180M, but together they would not use 330M because some stuff is shared. Hm, isn't this what the SHR column in top is for? In Florian's case, there is firefox with 484M in the RES column and thunderbird with 146M, but the SHA column gives 10M + 15M, so only 25M of 630M are shared? Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Am 18.09.2010 22:19, schrieb Alex Schuster: [...] > > I used to restart kdm once per day in order to free memory. If I did not > do this, KDE4 became nearly unsusabe. > Yeah, logout - logon seems to resolve my problem temporarily, as well. > > Now this looks different here. I have X with 946M, plasma-desktop with > 505M, that's 15 times the memory you need. Then comes java with 371M (for > TV-Browser - yes, 371MB just for showing the TV programme!), emerge wants > 272M while emerging openoffice. Chromium also needs much memory, my 33 > tabs want 762M: Wow, especially X's usage makes me wonder whether this is a kernel bug. > > Which is another problem I think. One question is how KDE4 can need such a > lot of memory, the other is how the system can become so unresponsive once > its starts swapping. I used to have larger swap with less RAM, and did not > have those performance problems. One year ago I usually had 2G tmpfs for > /var/tmp/portage, nowadays (with 4G) I cannot emerge things while working > with the system (like, watching videos with mplayer). It feels like as > soon as RAM is not enough and swapping occurs, the system swaps stuff that > it will need again immediately. Hmm, maybe it is the usage pattern that matters. I guess X (or whatever gets swapped out in your case) wants to access all the data, maybe for a cyclic refresh or something, it blocks for some time. That's the good thing about normal memory leaks: Whatever is leaked, it is normally not accessed again, anyway. > > The system is an AMD Athlon 4850e (2 cores, 2500MHz) with 4GB of RAM. > Everything is on LVM, most partitions are LUKS-encrypted. /var/tmp/portage > is unencrypted, and at the moment swap is also not encrypted and on my 2nd > drive. The encryption does not be much of an overhead, when the system > stutters, top shows a large wa(it) value, and not much CPU usage. swappiness > is set to 10. > My system is nearly completely on LUKS and LVM. That doesn't seem to be the problym in my case, either. > Any ideas? I might just get another 2G, and then the problems will be gone, > but I think this would be only a workaround. 6G should be enough already > even when using lots of applications, shouldn't it`? > > BTW, I emerged and tried KDE 3.5 a week ago. Cool, things were fast > there. Probably because it needs less memory. But I don't want to go back. > The interesting thing is that I have a netbook with a minimal KDE-4 on it. It doesn't need more than 150M of its 512M memory. Of course it doesn't have Semantic Desktop and all that but it still works good and is responsive as hell.
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Am 19.09.2010 13:34, schrieb Alex Schuster: > Alan McKinnon writes: >> Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not >> mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. > > You gave the example of Thunderbird using 150M and Firefox 180M, but > together they would not use 330M because some stuff is shared. Hm, isn't > this what the SHR column in top is for? In Florian's case, there is > firefox with 484M in the RES column and thunderbird with 146M, but the SHA > column gives 10M + 15M, so only 25M of 630M are shared? > I thought the SHR column is about shared memory like System-V SHM, mmap and Pipes when used for inter-process communication. But I could be wrong.
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:34 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Alex Schuster did opine thusly: > Alan McKinnon writes: > > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:45 on Saturday 18 September 2010, > > > > Florian Philipp did opine thusly: > > > I have a bit of a problem. I'm on KDE-4.4.5 and it eats memory for > > > breakfast. Directly after booting, everything is okay but the usage > > > grows significantly. I wonder whether this is expected behavior. > > > > > > The following statistics have been taken after 8 days of uptime > > > during which the system was on standby most of the time during work > > > days and at night. > > > > > > free -m > > > > > > total used free shared buffers cached > > > > > > Mem: 3754 3588 165 0 57 258 > > > -/+ buffers/cache: 3271 482 > > > Swap: 6142 978 5163 > > > > > > A desktop machine that has 4GB RAM and still needs to swap?! > > What I forgot to ask: Do you feel the performance becomes bad? Does the > system feel more responsive again when you restart KDM and log in again? > > I don't mind the system growing swap, that's normal, but now, as soon as > significant swapping starts, the system becomes slow. I don't know why. It's swapping. It will become slow. Disks are millions of time slower than RAM. > > > > Excerpt from top: > > > VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > > > > > 1094m 484m 10m S0 12.9 96:43.01 firefox > > > > > > 932m 471m 15m S0 12.6 5:10.20 akregator > > > 384m 303m 2856 S0 8.1 59:43.43 virtuoso-t > > > 709m 282m 2936 S0 7.5 0:40.51 nepomukservices > > > 839m 146m 15m S0 3.9 8:37.76 thunderbird-bin > > > 191m 131m 532 S0 3.5 12:30.73 dbus-daemon > > > 902m 105m 5288 S0 2.8 0:30.16 krunner > > > 263m 105m 1724 S0 2.8 2:31.18 squid > > > 255m 61m 6672 S7 1.6 305:04.24 X > > > > > > 1106m 55m 7756 S0 1.5 4:22.73 amarok > > > > > > 534m 54m 10m S0 1.5 2:33.94 kopete > > > 559m 52m 6536 S0 1.4 56:52.37 nepomukservices > > > 718m 38m 12m S4 1.0 143:36.62 plasma-desktop > > > 295m 33m 2048 S0 0.9 1:59.32 mysqld > > > 360m 17m 1856 S0 0.5 0:07.56 tomboy > > > 445m 16m 3392 S0 0.4 38:54.36 nepomukservices > > > 365m 14m 6356 S1 0.4 27:38.49 konsole > > > 438m 11m 4928 S0 0.3 0:20.12 kded4 > > > 508m 11m 6364 S0 0.3 0:45.79 kwin > > > > Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not > > mean what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. > > You gave the example of Thunderbird using 150M and Firefox 180M, but > together they would not use 330M because some stuff is shared. Hm, isn't > this what the SHR column in top is for? In Florian's case, there is > firefox with 484M in the RES column and thunderbird with 146M, but the SHA > column gives 10M + 15M, so only 25M of 630M are shared? Yes that's true. I sucked the 150 && 180 numbers out of my ass. The post was to highlight common problems with reading top output, not to diagnose any problem he might be having. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
Am 19.09.2010 10:25, schrieb Alan McKinnon: [...] > Like I posted in another thread today, the memory columns in top do not mean > what most people think they mean, nor are they simplistic. > > The columns tell you the amount of memory that process can access. This is > vitally important to understand. Modern memory managers in all OSes have the > concept of shared code and shared memory. It would be insanely wasteful for > each process to have it's own copy of all the data in RAM it ever uses. At a > minimum, every process would need a full copy of glibc loaded into RAM. > > Here's what really happens (simplistic version): > > An app loads, and links to libraries it needs. They may or may not already be > in RAM; if nor, they are loaded. Those binary images increase the amount of > RAM the process may address. The app uses more RAM for it's own purposes > (data > it is using) and after a while lots of that data is still in RAM but no > longer > being used. > > When things get tight, the kernel has a good long hard look at memory usage > and starts chucking bits away that can be dispensed with safely. How much > control do you, the user, have over this: none whatsoever. Why: because the > situation is changing millions of times a second and there's no way you can > keep up. > > It's like your heart. You don't actually want to be bothered keeping the damn > thing pumping consciously. So you let your brain stem do all that heavy > lifting. With memory, the kernel is your brain stem. > > Your numbers above look perfectly normal. Most of that RAM can and will be > dumped when something else comes along that needs it. The clincher is your > swap usage. After 8 days you are using only about 12% of total which > indicates > the kernel is quite happily keeping everything under control and still has > plenty of wiggle room left to keep you humming along nicely. > > The only point where this memory scheme goes wrong is when an app has a > memory > leak - it has finished with some data in RAM and does not release it. The > chances that all your "memory hogs" all have leaks like this are very small. > > Final conclusion: you have nothing to worry about. > I disagree on that last point. While it might be true that some of the statistics are not correct, I have a feeling that it is not acceptable or normal that a simple desktop system is not able to free enough memory to have more that 1/8 of it available for cache. I mean, my old system had 2 GB RAM and an equivalent Gnome system on it. It needed swap as well due to Firefox and Eclipse eating memory. But otherwise its usage was far less than what I see here.
Re: [gentoo-user] Opera and Konqueror won't print, but FF works fine
On Tuesday 14 September 2010 09:06:25 Petric Frank wrote: > Hello Mick, > > Am Montag, 13. September 2010, 23:09:03 schrieb Mick: > > Konqueror won't even go as far as that. It only shows: > > > > I [13/Sep/2010:22:04:57 +0100] [Job ???] Request file type is > > application/pdf. > > In case of priting with KDE applications you may be hit by this bug: > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309901 > > To make the the solution i applied at my installation short: > > copy > /usr/portage/net-print/cups/files/pdftops-1.20.gentoo > > to > /usr/libexec/cups/filter/pdftops > > After that restart cupsd. > > According to the bug report this seems to work is the package "poppler" is > also installed - which the case at my installation. > > Hope that helps. I upgraded to cups-1.4.4-r2 and KDE now prints fine. Opera still fails with a blank sheet coming out of the printer on the amd64 box. Anyone else having this problem? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] No contacts in kaddressbook since KDE-4.4.4
I have tried changing resources in systemsettings to akonadi directory, instead of .kde4/share/apps/kabc/std.vcf, but still cannot see any contacts. When entering an address in a new message To: field, the address book seems to be used because autocompletion works. This is happening on both an amd64 (sqlite) and a x86 box (mysql). When I set it to use akonadi as a default resource then kmail freezes up within 5 minutes. I assume that this is related to akonadi trying to autosave any changes (as per the 'Tune' tab of the akonadi resource settings). Can you see your contacts in kaddressbook? Any ideas how I could fix it? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
On Saturday 18 September 2010, Florian Philipp wrote: > > Okay, I'm used to Firefox taking much memory. I'm okay with that since > it's the most heavily used application currently running. But why does > Akregator need that much memory? It doesn't even have any tabs open at > the moment and is just running minimized in the background. so akregator has a mem leak. Kill and restart it. And before you do: bug report with kde.
[gentoo-user] mysql... drives me crazy
Hi all, I'm not a mysql guru but what that bastard is doing it's drive me crazy. version:5.1.50-r1 installed from portage So... I have installed and working fine. I have installed phpmyadmin too and it's working fine. I can log in... :) I wanted to create a database but after I gave the database's name and click "Create" button the phpmyadmin kicked me out. Now, I can't log in and there is no error message or something. I'have tried to fix it with mysql_permission but there is no result. I can't log in through phpmyadmin. But, I can log in through terminal. I don't like mysql console because this is an uncomfortable, non usable little piece of something. Thanks for any suggestions in advance! András -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell
Re: [gentoo-user] Native 32 and 64-bit linux Flash 10 Preview Release available
On 09/19/2010 08:05 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > This is of interest to those of us running old versions of Flash, > especially on 64-bit installs without 32-bit support (looks in > mirror). > > Download site is http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html > To find out where to install, go to "about:plugins" in Firefox, and see > where your current version of libflashplayer.so is installed. In my > case it's /opt/Adobe/flash-player/libflashplayer.so > > To install... > > * for 64-bit version download the file > http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/flashplayer_square_p1_64bit_linux_091510.tar.gz > > * for 32-bit version download the file > http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/flashplayer_square_p1_32bit_linux_091510.tar.gz > > * exit Firefox > > * mv your current copy of libflashplayer.so to another directory as a > backup, in case the new one doesn't work for you > > * extract libflashplayer.so from the downloaded tar.gz into the > directory which you removed libflashplayer.so from. > > * fire up Firefox, and away you go > > * note that when the release version comes out, you'll need to manually > remove the Preview Release libflashplayer.so > > Good news > = > It works for me, so far. I've tried live365.com, both via my paid > account and via the free (with commercials) option. It works. So does > Youtube. > > Bad news > > It's more painfull building up a collection of flv videos. The old > version used to copy Youtube videos/songs/whatever into /tmp with a > filename beginning with "Flash". It would get wiped each time you > played a new video/whatever. But you could always move it out to > another place before playing the next video. Rename the file to > .flv and mplayer plays it beautifully. Nice way to build up > a collection. > > The new version dumps it in the "Cache" directory of whatever Firefox > profile I'm using. You have to cd to the "Cache" subdirectory, and > execute... > > file * | grep Macro > > and you'll get a list of all "Macromedia Flash" files in the directory. > One of them is the most recent Flash file you played on Youtube. You > have to do some digging. Again, copy it to another file elsewhere to > keep a copy. > I have not tried the new version, but this should still work: the flash-process has a file-open-link in /proc//fd/ The /tmp/Flashxx file was symlinked there. So now the filename and path are different, but you can probably still find it like that faster (at least as long as the flv is open by the plugin :) Bye, Daniel -- PGP key @ http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xBB9D4887&op=get # gpg --recv-keys --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0xBB9D4887 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Some keyboard confusions
Mick [10-09-18 18:00]: > On Saturday 18 September 2010 04:44:35 meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: > > KEYMAP="qwertz/de-latin1-nodeadkeys" > > Try changing this to: > > KEYMAP="de-latin1-nodeadkeys" > -- > Regards, > Mick Unfortunately, this give me an QWERTY-keyboard layout (default). Regards, mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] Some keyboard confusions
On Sunday 19 September 2010 16:06:06 meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: > Mick [10-09-18 18:00]: > > On Saturday 18 September 2010 04:44:35 meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: > > > KEYMAP="qwertz/de-latin1-nodeadkeys" > > > > Try changing this to: > > > > KEYMAP="de-latin1-nodeadkeys" > > Unfortunately, this give me an QWERTY-keyboard layout (default). Hmm ... odd! There is no such keyboard file under ... /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty: $ ls -la /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty | grep de-latin1-nodeadkeys $ unlike the qwertz directory: $ ls -la /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwertz | grep de-latin1-nodeadkeys -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 295 May 14 18:59 de-latin1-nodeadkeys.map.gz Have you perhaps made a typo? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Some keyboard confusions
Mick [10-09-19 18:02]: > On Sunday 19 September 2010 16:06:06 meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: > > Mick [10-09-18 18:00]: > > > On Saturday 18 September 2010 04:44:35 meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: > > > > KEYMAP="qwertz/de-latin1-nodeadkeys" > > > > > > Try changing this to: > > > > > > KEYMAP="de-latin1-nodeadkeys" > > > > Unfortunately, this give me an QWERTY-keyboard layout (default). > > Hmm ... odd! > > There is no such keyboard file under ... /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty: > > $ ls -la /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty | grep de-latin1-nodeadkeys > $ > > unlike the qwertz directory: > > $ ls -la /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwertz | grep de-latin1-nodeadkeys > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 295 May 14 18:59 de-latin1-nodeadkeys.map.gz > > Have you perhaps made a typo? > -- > Regards, > Mick Hi Mick, The problem is somehow different. Because de-latin1-nodeadkeys is not found undr /usr/share/keymaps (it is under /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwert), there is no key(re)mapping at all and everything remains by default...and this is a qwerty keyboard. Setting it to KEYMAP="qwertz/de-latin1-nodeadkeys" give /most/ (but unfortunately not every) keymapping I want: No '@'for example but nodeadkeys. When doing a setxkbd de give me all keymappings -- but no nodeadkeys (the dead keys are 'dead' and not 'nodead'). So, currently I can choose between two not completly good settings... Best regards, mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
> > Actually, the 3588 is what is used. The 165 is what is free. Maybe the > email program you are using is not lining the columns up properly. > Maybe you are right. Headers out of alignment. Al
Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 3:02 AM, András Csányi wrote: > On 19 September 2010 10:09, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Apparently, though unproven, at 00:28 on Sunday 19 September 2010, András > > Csányi did opine thusly: > > > >> On 19 September 2010 00:14, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > >> > Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less > >> > stable. > >> > > >> > I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons > (xmarks, > >> > AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. Seg fault > >> > sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, and it does > >> > not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and re-emerge. > >> > Grr. > >> > >> Use Chrome/Chromium. At my gentoo the fox won't even start. I don't > >> know why, I won't to know why... I'm tired about Firefox. :S > > > > > > If you run Firefox from a terminal, do you get an error about xpcom? > > > > If so, you need revdep-rebuild and possibly re-merge nss. > > It's all in the build elogs. > > Hi Alan, > > I have tried to start from terminal, but no message. I have tried to > run after revdep-rebuild but nothing. I have installed binary version > but the result was the same. > After these I have tried strace and if I remenber correctly it stopped > with segmentation fault. Unfortunately I can't reproduce this problem > because few days ago I changed my system from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here > everything is working fine according firefox. > > I know I should have report it but, that time, I was really tired > emotionally. :( > Yeah, me too. I teach at a university and classes start tomorrow. I've had the fox not starting as someone else did, then on upgrade it was sort of working, then not. The last bug I submitted led to the instruction to start with a clean profile. Sounds sensible, but that means none of my bookmarks, ad blocks, noscript, cookies or anything. I tried it anyway with 3.6.9 and Xmarks only (really need those bookmarks). It died before I could get near to the original problem. That's when I started this thread. I've got other more urgent things to do with my time. Like my laptop's Ubuntu which suddenly decided it didn't know anything about its network adapters, and I could not figure out the config tools that seem to want me to know the MAC address of all that stuff. No clue, don't know how to find out, but at least I can back up my home directories. But I need this thing for class _tomorrow_ and I've got a lot of stuff to print and get on the web -- these things have cost me about a week. I'm writing this on Opera. I'll try chrome if it's easy to figure out. I don't expect to see the fox on gentoo again any time soon. I'm sad because I used to like it. Good luck. ++ kevin -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Re: [gentoo-user] ark-4.4.5-cli7zip.patch - Digest verification failed
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Albert Hopkins wrote: > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:23 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > [...] >> >>> Verifying ebuild manifests >> >> !!! Digest verification failed: >> !!! /usr/portage/kde-base/ark/files/ark-4.4.5-cli7zip.patch >> !!! Reason: Failed on RMD160 verification >> !!! Got: 285b725e7542b78815f0f909a65b4b6ec20cee89 >> !!! Expected: 57369a955bff3038ad0c105eea0179bbb795a030 >> firefly ~ # >> >> Google isn't turning anything up. Normally these things get cleared >> up within about a day but this time around I'm starting to wonder if I >> have some other problem here and this is only a symptom? >> >> I'm sure there's some way I can get past it WRT emerge but I'd >> rather get it handled at the source if possible. I though about >> deleting things in the path shown above but I haven't ever removed >> anything except distfiles and didn't want to start now. > > Why not? It's in your portage tree. Any deleted/altered files get > replaced on the next --sync anyway. > > Having said that. My copy of the file indeed matches the manifest. So > either you need to re --sync, delete the file and re --sync, or try > syncing from a different mirror. Thanks Albert. It worked and the problem is gone. In a related way I've never stopped to look at /usr in the process of doing an install. I have an old Mac Mini that I've been trying to get Gentoo running on recently so in the middle of my install this morning I stopped after untarring the stage-3 tarball and before untarring the portage snapshot and found that /usr/portage doesn't exist at that point. Does this suggest that I'm actually free at any time to rm -r /usr/portage and just untar the current snapshot? Other than distfiles and the overhead of downloading all that stuff again is there anything in /usr/portage that once erased would damage the machine? I can always get most of distfile from other machines around here so it's really a question as to whether portage and emerge build anything in /usr/portage that cannot be recreated without much trouble. Thanks again, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona > wrote: >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: >>> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less >>> stable. >>> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. >>> Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and >>> re-emerge. >>> >>> Grr. >> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the >> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. >> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. >> >> greets >> FT >> >> -- >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010 >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total >> aemaeth >> >> > > Well, guess I'm lucky then. > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but > still, I don't see it in a near future. > > -- > Daniel da Veiga Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from giving it a real try... Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en Flashblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl?hl=en Adblock: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long time. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] KDE ridiculous memory usage
ok first of .. i dont run my comp (laptop) for that long, although i am planning to start using hibernate. its usually up the whole day though. secondly im on kde4.5.1 (but i dont remeber having such bad memory problems with the version your running). Krunner's neopomuk plugin leaks memory, everytime you search for something that returns any nepomuk results, krunners memory usage jumps by ~10 mb and never decreases. disable it if you have it enabled and restart it. there is a bug report here https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224287 maybe we should file a new one. if you still want nepomuk, you can limit virtuoso-t's memory usage in nepomuk's kcm module(last tab), it usually abides by those values, however once for me it went over that and continued to grow and nepomuk became unresponsive (none of the search querries worked) and i had to kill it. ive tried to reproduce that bug to no awail. i use akregator too and i dont find it such memory hog (maybe its the version i use 4.4.6) 8009 yohan 20 0 502m 52m 20m S0 1.3 0:03.54 akregator you could try upgrading, i think i found the newer version a bit more snapiper (but thats probably psychological). this is the result of free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 3928 2409 1519 0767640 -/+ buffers/cache: 1001 2926 Swap: 6981 0 6981 (i thoought i needed all that swap for hibernating and thats why its so big ) -- - Yohan Pereira.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga > > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona > > > > wrote: > >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > >>> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less > >>> stable. > >>> > >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons > >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. > >>> Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, > >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and > >>> re-emerge. > >>> > >>> Grr. > >> > >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the > >> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. > >> > >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. > >> > >> greets > >>FT > >> > >> -- > >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 > >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010 > >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total > >> aemaeth > > > > Well, guess I'm lucky then. > > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other > > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my > > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't > > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, > > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but > > still, I don't see it in a near future. > > > > -- > > Daniel da Veiga > > Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least > contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but > covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll > not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from > giving it a real try... > > Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: > https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcf > n?hl=en > > Flashblock: > https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabn > l?hl=en > > Adblock: > https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglido > m?hl=en > > The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it > seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything > else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long > time. Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick wrote: > > Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome > once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it > because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits > and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other > words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language. Everywhere are strange symbols... :) -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On 09/19/10 19:26, András Csányi wrote: > On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick wrote: >> >> Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome >> once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it >> because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits >> and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other >> words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. > > Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which > contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I > think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language. > Everywhere are strange symbols... :) > I think Opera is mutch slower as FF, also i don't like the GUI. Also you can speed up by using Jaegermonkey (http://blog.mozilla.com/dmandelin/2010/02/26/starting-jagermonkey/). But yeahr FF has lost lots of stability. But this is often becoures of problem in addon or flash (most flash), simply that every site got to mutch stuff to put in, also ad becomes flash i so annoyed abot this... What i think it's even worest the use of memory by Firefox. This grow by every release i'm not sure about Chrome, wasn't there some problems with sending data to google? Greeting Alex -- Sourcegarden GmbH HR: B-104357 Steuernummer: 37/167/21214 USt-ID: DE814784953 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mario Scheliga, Rene Otto Bank: Deutsche Bank, BLZ: 10070024, KTO: 0810929 Schoenhauser Allee 55, 10437 Berlin
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mick wrote: > On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga >> >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona >> > >> > wrote: >> >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: >> >>> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less >> >>> stable. >> >>> >> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons >> >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. >> >>> Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, >> >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and >> >>> re-emerge. >> >>> >> >>> Grr. >> >> >> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the >> >> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. >> >> >> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. >> >> >> >> greets >> >> FT >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 >> >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010 >> >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total >> >> aemaeth >> > >> > Well, guess I'm lucky then. >> > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other >> > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my >> > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't >> > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, >> > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but >> > still, I don't see it in a near future. >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel da Veiga >> >> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least >> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but >> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll >> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from >> giving it a real try... >> >> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcf >> n?hl=en >> >> Flashblock: >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabn >> l?hl=en >> >> Adblock: >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglido >> m?hl=en >> >> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it >> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything >> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long >> time. > > Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome > once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it > because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits > and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other > words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. > -- > Regards, > Mick > I decided to forgo letting myself worry over what google is/isn't getting regarding my internet usage around the time I started using gmail, since I'm practically handing them more through that than any access to my browser history or the like gives. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] ark-4.4.5-cli7zip.patch - Digest verification failed
Apparently, though unproven, at 19:02 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Mark Knecht did opine thusly: > In a related way I've never stopped to look at /usr in the process of > doing an install. I have an old Mac Mini that I've been trying to get > Gentoo running on recently so in the middle of my install this morning > I stopped after untarring the stage-3 tarball and before untarring the > portage snapshot and found that /usr/portage doesn't exist at that > point. > > Does this suggest that I'm actually free at any time to rm -r > /usr/portage and just untar the current snapshot? Other than distfiles > and the overhead of downloading all that stuff again is there anything > in /usr/portage that once erased would damage the machine? No, nothing. All the valuable data files are elsewhere in /var and all of portage can be downloaded at any time. $PORTDIR/local/layman can also be downloaded at any time. Your personal overlay (if you have one) in $PORTDIR/local/$WHATEVER will of course get nuked so you should back that up. It will be re-read when you put it back and run eix-update -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Fire the fox.
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:32 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman did opine thusly: > Yeah, me too. I teach at a university and classes start tomorrow. I've had > the fox not starting as someone else did, then on upgrade it was sort of > working, then not. The last bug I submitted led to the instruction to > start with a clean profile. Sounds sensible, but that means none of my > bookmarks, ad blocks, noscript, cookies or anything. I tried it anyway > with 3.6.9 and Xmarks only (really need those bookmarks). It died before > I could get near to the original problem. That's when I started this > thread. I've got other more urgent things to do with my time. > > > Like my laptop's Ubuntu which suddenly decided it didn't know anything > about its network adapters, and I could not figure out the config tools > that seem to want me to know the MAC address of all that stuff. No clue, > don't know how to find out, but at least I can back up my home > directories. But I need this thing for class _tomorrow_ and I've got a > lot of stuff to print and get on the web -- these things have cost me > about a week. > > I'm writing this on Opera. I'll try chrome if it's easy to figure out. I > don't expect to see the fox on gentoo again any time soon. I'm sad > because I used to like it. Good luck. Firefox seems to suffer badly with upgrades here too. But revdep-rebuild usually fixes it. If not revdep-rebuild then a good dose of common sense usually helps me find the thing that needs rebuilding. The most recent change needed nss to be rebuilt, then firefox again. It's a similar situation to xorg-server and it's drivers. Portage can't trigger a rebuild of the drivers as their version didn't change. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] ark-4.4.5-cli7zip.patch - Digest verification failed
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Apparently, though unproven, at 19:02 on Sunday 19 September 2010, Mark Knecht > did opine thusly: > > >> In a related way I've never stopped to look at /usr in the process of >> doing an install. I have an old Mac Mini that I've been trying to get >> Gentoo running on recently so in the middle of my install this morning >> I stopped after untarring the stage-3 tarball and before untarring the >> portage snapshot and found that /usr/portage doesn't exist at that >> point. >> >> Does this suggest that I'm actually free at any time to rm -r >> /usr/portage and just untar the current snapshot? Other than distfiles >> and the overhead of downloading all that stuff again is there anything >> in /usr/portage that once erased would damage the machine? > > No, nothing. All the valuable data files are elsewhere in /var and all of > portage can be downloaded at any time. > > $PORTDIR/local/layman can also be downloaded at any time. > > Your personal overlay (if you have one) in $PORTDIR/local/$WHATEVER will of > course get nuked so you should back that up. It will be re-read when you put > it back and run eix-update Thanks very much for the info Alan. I appreciate it. Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:56:36 me wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mick wrote: > > On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga > >> > >> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > >> >>> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less > >> >>> stable. > >> >>> > >> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons > >> >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. > >> >>> Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, > >> >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and > >> >>> re-emerge. > >> >>> > >> >>> Grr. > >> >> > >> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes > >> >> the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as > >> >> molasses. > >> >> > >> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. > >> >> > >> >> greets > >> >>FT > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 > >> >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010 > >> >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total > >> >> aemaeth > >> > > >> > Well, guess I'm lucky then. > >> > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other > >> > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my > >> > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't > >> > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, > >> > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but > >> > still, I don't see it in a near future. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Daniel da Veiga > >> > >> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least > >> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but > >> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll > >> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from > >> giving it a real try... > >> > >> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: > >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpk > >> kcf n?hl=en > >> > >> Flashblock: > >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaign > >> abn l?hl=en > >> > >> Adblock: > >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbigl > >> ido m?hl=en > >> > >> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it > >> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything > >> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long > >> time. > > > > Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried > > Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I > > gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home > > with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my > > machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google > > was recording my Internet journeys. -- > > Regards, > > Mick > > I decided to forgo letting myself worry over what google is/isn't > getting regarding my internet usage around the time I started using > gmail, since I'm practically handing them more through that than any > access to my browser history or the like gives. I use gmail too, but for sensitive information of commercial or private nature I use encryption and for very sensitive information I do not use gmail. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Native 32 and 64-bit linux Flash 10 Preview Release available
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:05:51 -0400 Walter Dnes wrote: > This is of interest to those of us running old versions of Flash, > especially on 64-bit installs without 32-bit support (looks in > mirror). > > Download site is http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html > To find out where to install, go to "about:plugins" in Firefox, and > see where your current version of libflashplayer.so is installed. In > my case it's /opt/Adobe/flash-player/libflashplayer.so > > To install... > > * for 64-bit version download the file > http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/flashplayer_square_p1_64bit_linux_091510.tar.gz > > * for 32-bit version download the file > http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/flashplayer_square_p1_32bit_linux_091510.tar.gz > > * exit Firefox > > * mv your current copy of libflashplayer.so to another directory as a > backup, in case the new one doesn't work for you > > * extract libflashplayer.so from the downloaded tar.gz into the > directory which you removed libflashplayer.so from. > > * fire up Firefox, and away you go > > * note that when the release version comes out, you'll need to > manually remove the Preview Release libflashplayer.so I've just installed it and it's working nicely for me. Thanks for the link and install instructions. After creating directory /opt/Adobe/flash-player/ and extracting the tarball, I needed to create a symlink for /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so, and then restart firefox. David
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:26:56 András Csányi wrote: > On 19 September 2010 19:18, Mick wrote: > > Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried > > Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I > > gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home > > with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my > > machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google > > was recording my Internet journeys. > > Opera... :) Somebody can to tell me where is that config file which > contains the language preferences? Because I have a new profile and I > think the Opera try to communicate with me japan or chinese language. > Everywhere are strange symbols... :) Hmm, it should have inherited your default language setting. Try Tools/General - at the bottom there is a drop down option to change the language. Alternatively, type opera:config and go down to User Prefs on the page that opens. Then scroll down to find "Language File", "Language Files Directory", etc. My "Language Files Directory" points to /usr/share/opera/locale/en-GB/ HTH -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] mysql... drives me crazy
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 16:02 +0200, András Csányi wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm not a mysql guru but what that bastard is doing it's drive me crazy. > > version:5.1.50-r1 installed from portage > > So... > I have installed and working fine. > I have installed phpmyadmin too and it's working fine. I can log in... :) > I wanted to create a database but after I gave the database's name and > click "Create" button the phpmyadmin kicked me out. Now, I can't log > in and there is no error message or something. > I'have tried to fix it with mysql_permission but there is no result. I > can't log in through phpmyadmin. But, I can log in through terminal. So your problem seems to be with phpmyadmin, not with MySQL per sé. > I don't like mysql console because this is an uncomfortable, non > usable little piece of something. Yet it works... Seems to me more like the phpmyadmin is the "non usable" such and such.
[gentoo-user] dbus static libs problem
Hi all. During a system update today, /usr/lib/libdbus-1.la was deleted. However a number of packages require this file and now I can't emerge any version of dbus with static-libs -- seems they have hard-coded it away. What the heck is going on? Any assistance would be appreciated. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] dbus static libs problem
On 09/20/10 02:33, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > Hi all. During a system update today, /usr/lib/libdbus-1.la was > deleted. However a number of packages require this file and now I > can't emerge any version of dbus with static-libs -- seems they > have hard-coded it away. What the heck is going on? > > Any assistance would be appreciated. > No it's still there O.o, you already tryed a revdep-rebuild? Greetings Alex -- Sourcegarden GmbH HR: B-104357 Steuernummer: 37/167/21214 USt-ID: DE814784953 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mario Scheliga, Rene Otto Bank: Deutsche Bank, BLZ: 10070024, KTO: 0810929 Schoenhauser Allee 55, 10437 Berlin
Re: [gentoo-user] dbus static libs problem
a...@sourcegarden.de wrote: > On 09/20/10 02:33, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > > Hi all. During a system update today, /usr/lib/libdbus-1.la was > > deleted. However a number of packages require this file and now I > > can't emerge any version of dbus with static-libs -- seems they > > have hard-coded it away. What the heck is going on? > > > > Any assistance would be appreciated. > > > > No it's still there O.o, you already tryed a revdep-rebuild? I did try to re-emerge one of the packages --brasero -- but it still would not compile and portage does not indicate any libraries needing to be rebuilt since I am using the 2.2 series. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] How to get hid2hci command
maybe you need the "old-daemons" use flag? On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Kyle Bader wrote: > net-wireless/bluez maybe? > > Kyle > > On Sep 16, 2010 1:01 PM, "Hung Dang" wrote: > > Hi all, > > I need to use hid2hci for my bluetooth keyboad. However, I could not figure > out how to get the hid2hci command. > Any suggestion would be appreciate? > > Thanks in advance > Hung > -- Best Regards, Xi Shen (David) http://twitter.com/davidshen84/
[gentoo-user] Amarok
Hi Guys, I like amarok, I don't know why just I like it. Yesterday, when I switched off amarok I saw the CPU using went down from ~40% to ~3% and kwin from ~30% to ~1%. the side effects of this, slower desktop and sometimes is uncomfortable. My machine has 4GB RAM and nvidia (geforce 8400), but the CPUs are celeron. The system is 64 bit. I'm thinking I will change Amarok to Audacious. Anybody else experienced this or just I'm cursed? :) Any help thanks in advance! András -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fire the fox.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:07 AM, me wrote: > Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least > contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but > covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll > not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from > giving it a real try... > > Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: > https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en > > Flashblock: > https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabnl?hl=en > > Adblock: > https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en > > The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it > seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything > else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long > time. thx 4 sharing -- @ghosTM55 Mechanism, not policy
Re: [gentoo-user] mysql... drives me crazy
On 19 September 2010 21:12, Albert Hopkins wrote: > On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 16:02 +0200, András Csányi wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm not a mysql guru but what that bastard is doing it's drive me crazy. >> >> version:5.1.50-r1 installed from portage >> >> So... >> I have installed and working fine. >> I have installed phpmyadmin too and it's working fine. I can log in... :) >> I wanted to create a database but after I gave the database's name and >> click "Create" button the phpmyadmin kicked me out. Now, I can't log >> in and there is no error message or something. >> I'have tried to fix it with mysql_permission but there is no result. I >> can't log in through phpmyadmin. But, I can log in through terminal. > > So your problem seems to be with phpmyadmin, not with MySQL per sé. Basicly, I don't know what is the root cause, Mysql or Phpmyadmin? >> I don't like mysql console because this is an uncomfortable, non >> usable little piece of something. > > Yet it works... > > Seems to me more like the phpmyadmin is the "non usable" such and such. Yes, it works. :) But annoying that fact there is no comfortable way to handle my databases and more annoying that I can't solve this problem. What is your opinion, what should I have to do? It's not problem to learn use mysql from console. -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell
