# 2.6 kernel's performances

## tecknojunky

Despite the praises that the 2.6.x kernel will accelerate things on the PC, after 2+ months of usage, I must conclude that on my box, things are running slower that with 2.4  :Sad: 

Quite paradoxaly, my 2.6 Linux box seem seem to have caught the Win98 syndrome, you know, if you leave it running for more than 3 days it becomes unusable til it crash?  Well, this is what I have now, with the only difference that it takes Linux 2.6 7 to 10 days to get to that point.  But the synptoms are just the sames.  The longer it's up, the less responsives it gets, untils it becomes totally unresponsive and eventualy apps keep crashings (well, the kernel stll is a go).

On the GUI side of things, well I nerver succeeded to get glx working, altough it's active, it produces spychedelic images only.  But that's ok.  I'm sure that time will resolve that one.  But for the smoothness, it's far from what I had with a 2.4 kernel and the stable 4.3 xfree.  I think the problem is I/O bound,  When there's a download, the mouse gets slightly skippin.  When there's heavy hard drive activity, it gets jumpy.  When I see the CPU gage at 100% (like when emerge is running), the mouse simply freeze and I have to wait for the refresh to know where it is.  I'm tired of always typing faster than what the GUI can print (and, no, I dont type very fast).

For the first time, I'm starting to think to make a rollback to 2.4  :Sad: .  I'll tough it a while. A reboot is a remedy good enough for a student neeeding a working box for the semester, but it's no cure.

Anyhow, I'm just curious to know if I'm the only one in the universe who had a negative operformance gain with a 2.6 kernel.  How are things going for you?

btw, I run it on a Celeron 600 mhz with 256 + 128 mb ram.  fsb is 100 mhz

----------

## overdozed

on my athlon xp 1800 I didnt realize too much speedup yet,

but no slowdown for sure :)

plaiing quake3 arena my frames per second are still nearly exactly the same.

I like the new menuconfig structure and some tools like standby and stuff.

I used the gaming kernel before which is heavily patched i think so it wasnt too much difference.

----------

## ett_gramse_nap

I think performance slowdown rising from upgrading the kernel just is a question about some kind of misconfiguration. Almost everyone has reported increased performance or at least the same one... my desktop is definitely more responsiveness and mplayer has never run that smooth!

----------

## putzmanjr19

I have had no problems at all with 2.6 performance.  Everything seems to be a bit more responsive than with previous versions.

----------

## Amoeba

make sure your config is correct, and also try some patches.  2.6 works well for me.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *overdozed wrote:*   

> on my athlon xp 1800 I didnt realize too much speedup yet,
> 
> but no slowdown for sure 
> 
> plaiing quake3 arena my frames per second are still nearly exactly the same.
> ...

 I agree that the menuconfig structure and build setup in the new kernel are much improved.  I like the "make install" that will automatically setup new builded kernel in /boot, backing up the current one.  My grub config is setup to take advantage of that so I can boot the .old kernel in case the newly built one fails.

 *ett_gramse_nap wrote:*   

> I think performance slowdown rising from upgrading the kernel just is a question about some kind of misconfiguration. Almost everyone has reported increased performance or at least the same one... my desktop is definitely more responsiveness and mplayer has never run that smooth!

 Then I must be the only one.  I have no doubt I also have some peculiar problem.  I'm wondering if its not simply my hardware that have bus sync problems.  I did try multiple combinations of fsb/cpu clock speed.  Meybe my hardware is broken.  Even if the menuconfig is changed, it is not out of my understanding and I think the kernel has nothing special that I have added compared to a 2.4.

 *putzmanjr19 wrote:*   

> I have had no problems at all with 2.6 performance. Everything seems to be a bit more responsive than with previous versions.

 As I said, not for me.  The longer it's up, the slower it gets.  And this Gentoo has been installed from scratch with a 2.6 liveCD.  I wonder if this might be the initial problem.

 *Amoeba wrote:*   

> make sure your config is correct, and also try some patches. 2.6 works well for me.

 I'm using the mm-source since it became official release.

----------

## MasquedAvenger

I don't know about other factors, but I have concluded in benchmarking my HD performance that 2.6 handles transfer rates much slower than with 2.4.  Here's a link to my exact findings:

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=133756

James

----------

## tecknojunky

 *MasquedAvenger wrote:*   

> I don't know about other factors, but I have concluded in benchmarking my HD performance that 2.6 handles transfer rates much slower than with 2.4.  Here's a link to my exact findings:
> 
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=133756
> 
> James

 That's one strong lead to follow.  Thanks.

I'll try to do like you did and do some benchmarking to compare different schedulling... although I still have to find out how you select a scheduling algorithme in the kernel.

----------

## G-Style

I noticed that speeds of apps loading increase, also I've left my computer on for 5 days once and not have a single problem.

----------

## NumaSan

I have the same problem, with worse performance i 2.6 than 2.4  :Sad: 

You wouldn't notice it if you just use it for listening to music and browsing, but starting a simple game like Emilia-pinball, and it lags (the game and music in xmms) Not much, but still. Same with Quake3. Also heavy CPU load affects the desktop-performance (mouse gets jerky, music lags, etc). I didn't experience that in kernel 2.4

The "funny" thing is, if I start Q3 in a new X-session, it flies (I got +6 fps with kernel 2.6), even though theres other processes running, (I can even emerge & compile, while playing pinball fluently(sp?) in a new X-session), but starting it in my wm, it lags. Looking at 'top' it looks like gkrellm2 is the big sinner, getiing unnecessery attention and ressources. Something isn't working as it should in 2.6, me thinks...

I don't know if it's because my computer is to slow for 2.6... It is a:

Dual Celeron 366MHz

Abit PB6 (Intel bx440)

640MB RAM

GeForce 256 DDR

3COM 905-TX

SB-128 (ES1371)

3 IDE DMA66 HD's (tweaket with hdparm)

kernel 2.4 ran ok/good on this machine, but I was hoping to squeeze out the last juice with the new kernel (using vanilla-2.6.2 btw). I'm using the anticipatory scheduler, and I'm 99% sure I configured the kernel correct (even though the layout is different, it's "nothing new").

I'm going to sit this one out (this machine is still usable with 2.6 if I spread the workload on multiple X-sessions), and follow the kernel-releases, maybe try some of the patch-sets, and nvidia-drivers the next couple of months. If it is the same after 2.6.5, I think I have to downgrade to 2.4.

I hope us with difficulties can share ideas and workarounds, and maybe solutions, to our probs with desktop-performance in 2.6

Thx for reading.

----------

## Suicidal

It seems to me on my P3 800 that it handles multi tasking much better than with 2.4 I am running a system completely compiled against 2.6 headers and nptl.

On a few games it feels a bit more sluggish to me, but while compiling in the background I can barely notice any slowdown at all. In 2.4 I always knew when I had a compile going on in 2.6 I cant really tell a difference except when trying to play a high fps game.

----------

## tecknojunky

Following MasquedAvenger's post, in the following weeks, I will try different scehdulers and see if I get/feel any improvments.

In his post, there is a link to another thread into which I posted hdparm -T -t results with each scheduler.  There is no significant differences, and I'm questioning myself if hdparm tests is a good reference for benchmarking scheduling differences in whole.

While doing those tests, I made some quicky tests to feel the system under each scheduler.  It would seem the general ideas of the forum community is that cfq is better.  I tought of all 4, it felt the worst.  I felt good about deadline and noop.

Since noop was the last scheduler I nechmarked with hdparm, I left it.  But it seem to have hickups also.  For exemple, I'm presently compiling while Rhythmbox is playing a stream.  When the mail about a new post in this thread arrived in Evo, I clicked the link.  No joke, Moz took about 3 minutes to open.  But once opened, it's fluid.  Rhythmbox did not skip in all of this process.

So, in a while, I'll try deadline, and I might give cfq a second chance.  So far, this is the only lead I have about why 2.6 is less performant than 2.4.  The system is compiled exactly like if it would have been a 2.4, compile flag/switchs wise

----------

## GentooBox

I have a Debian box with a 2.4.23 kernel and my gentoobox with 2.6.3 kernel.

the debian box is really slow compared to the gentoobox with the new kernel.

by the way: my debian box i home-compiled, so it has (almost) nothing to do with gentoo source-compiling.

----------

## Gandalf the White

My .02;

    I have found that my system definitely starts much, much faster on 2.6.2 than on 2.4 series. As for overall performance, I have noticed significant improvement in sound, I can actually do stuff without losing my sound. On 2.4 series, if I was doing an emerge under kde and listening to music, I wouldn't be listening to music  :Laughing:   Under 2.6, this is actually possible. However, I have also noticed a decline in overall performance. I think it's a little bit too soon to say whether or not 2.6 is faster than 2.4, remember, we're only on 2.6.3 now, kernel 2.4 has had two years(something like that) to perfect on it's performance, 2.6 is still working out bugs. For now, i'm staying with 2.6.2, and if I really need it I have 2.4.23 as a boot option also.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *Gandalf the White wrote:*   

> I have found that my system definitely starts much, much faster on 2.6.2 than on 2.4 series.

 No arguments from me on that point.

 *Gandalf the White wrote:*   

> As for overall performance, I have noticed significant improvement in sound, I can actually do stuff without losing my sound. On 2.4 series, if I was doing an emerge under kde and listening to music, I wouldn't be listening to music   Under 2.6, this is actually possible.

 My general media capabilities were already awsome in 2.4.  Music and videos played without skipping even at 100% cpu usage.  On 2.6, music still play without skipping, but video not.  Strangely, simply typing in this text dialog box and my cursor froze for 10 seconds.  Those never hapenned when on 2.4

 *Gandalf the White wrote:*   

> However, I have also noticed a decline in overall performance. I think it's a little bit too soon to say whether or not 2.6 is faster than 2.4, remember, we're only on 2.6.3 now, kernel 2.4 has had two years(something like that) to perfect on it's performance, 2.6 is still working out bugs.

 I have found that the ck-sources is geared for desktop performances.  So I'm presently compiling that kernel.  An ebuild is available on this forum.  Search ck-sources to find it.  I have high hopes on that one.  I'll post on my success/failure with this.

----------

## overdozed

In 2.4 on full cpu usage I realized only  problems whith when I moved windows

in 2.6 I also can move windows,

----------

## tristure

Ouch...

Seems I have some performance issues as well : I was editing a long text file tonight, while playing mp3's with xmms.

I kept the pg down key pressed for a while to reach a far further point of the document.

This caused the music to stop for 1/2 second...

With no other program running!

I run KDE on a athlon 2000+, and 512MO RAM... Well I think this shouldn't happen, should it? Kernel version : 2.6.1, gentoo-dev-sources

I have to state here that I had problems as well on the last few 2.4 gentoo sources : just moving the windows in kde made the sound jump...

Now I can move windows as much as I want... But this lag is very surprising. Keeping this key pressed results in a 100% CPU load. Can't understand it.

Anyone encountered similar problems?

----------

## tristure

FUnny. This problem is only with Kwrite.

I tried doing the same with Kedit and the cpu usage didn't go further than 70%

So kedit is lighter than kwrite.

Still, 70% for a page down is quite meaningless. Don't you think??

----------

## timfreeman

Everything has been more responsive here, too.. 

yesterday, IBM released a web serving specific comparison of kernels:

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-web26/index.html

----------

## tecknojunky

 *timfreeman wrote:*   

> Everything has been more responsive here, too.. 
> 
> yesterday, IBM released a web serving specific comparison of kernels:
> 
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-web26/index.html

 This link talks about web serving performances.

As I said in a previous post, it would seem the 2.6 kernel's scheduling is gears toward servers and not desktops.  Granted, it looks like the vast majority of users seem to agrre that performances are better also on the desktop.  But it's not everybody that experiencing that, being myself one of them.

I don't know why, but there must be some conjunctural reasons why on some few boxes the desktop performances is noticably degraded with 2.6 compared to 2.4.

For myself, I've been running the ck-sources and I do feel the desktop pretty much more responsive.  Although, under high loads, it still is jerky, but too a lesser extent than under mm-sources.  This is measured by my own gustsy feeling scale  :Wink: .

All in all, for the present, my appreciation for the 2.6 scheduling capabilities begins with the "s" word.  No, not that word, but the other word that relates to vaccum cleaners.

----------

## arwen

My thoughts of kernel 2.6's performance.. My system specs are Nforce2 chipset, athlon xp 2200+, 512Mb ram.

Overall performance is good, but i had to work with it. When system starts priorities of "reiserfs/0" process is "-10" ?! and all of the others are "0". So this gives that when there is lots of disk activity all the other apps runs slowly. I even noticed that cups service started with priority of "-10" (my cups is loaded when i plug my usb printer, using hotplug). So when I started printing cups hoged all of my system resources and X was sluggish.

I workarounded this priorizing X to "-10" so it is now same as those "reiserfs/0" process. No more sluggisnesh and choppy mouse or something like that.

Kernel 2.6 takes those priorities more seriously than the kernel 2.4 is my conclusion. 

So when I su to root from X (X priorized to -10) and root's shell is priorized to "0", you can feel the sluggisnesh right away, key presses are slow when there is activity in X. Workaround for that was putting this to my .bashrc : renice -10 `echo $$`

Not yet tried con kolivas patches, but i don't think they give more performance. I don't feel any jerky, sluggish or something like that in performance now when I have priorizied my X.

----------

## pilla

Moved from IG

----------

## tristure

That sounds interesting! How do you set the priority levels of the different applications?

Thanks!

----------

## arwen

Filesystem modules (xfs/reiser/..) automatically get that -10 priority. Programs at system startup get 0 priority.

Starting X with some priority you need this:

```
#include <stdio.h>

#include <stdlib.h>

#include <unistd.h>

#include <sys/stat.h>

#include <sys/types.h>

const char *app = "/usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86";   // the actual binary

const int root = 0;   // root's uid

const int n = -10;    // desired nice priority valid range -20..20.

int main(int argc, char **argv)

{

  seteuid(root);    // The X server must be started as root under any Linux

  nice(n);          // Makes it nice

  execv(app, argv); // This is it!

  /* Should never see this unless *app points to invalid binary */

  fprintf(stderr, "Failed to execv %s with nice value of %d\n", app, n);

  exit(1);

}
```

This was taken from forums somewhere very long time ago.. You can compile it like "gcc -o wrapper wrapper.c" and put that wrapper to /usr/X11R6/bin/wrapper, and give it execution+suid rights "chmod 4755 wrapper". Making link like this "ln -sf /usr/X11R6/bin/wrapper /usr/X11R6/bin/X".

Now when X starts it has -10 as priority and all started application in X get the same priority. So now the daemons started at startup are at very low priority (which is good for desktop) and all performance is targeted to X.

I have noticed also that VMware set very high priorities for its "ide/scsi" driver system and it feels very fast (faster than with 2.4).

Some application I had set to use realtime (priority -20) like app "tvtime". And for wine apps I use lower -5 priority. 

If application doesn't support setting process nice levels (application have to be suid-root), application have to be start with "nice". Ordinary users can't set application to higher level only lower.

----------

## Robin79

I have the same problem with alot of cpu taking! in the 2.6 kernel i have put up my config so you can look if somethings is wrong i have a p4 1.5 ghz and 384 rdram 800 and mplayer is taking very very much cpu about 10-40%  and mozilla when loading a webpage take even more  :Razz: 

----------

## tecknojunky

I came accross this article which hints on a very interresting possible reason for performances degradation: preemption.

On my next kernel upgrade, I will try turning off preemtive tasking and do some comparisons with a simple compile.

----------

## jaingaurav

You might want to check out this article as well:

http://www.2cpu.com/articles/98_1.html

My basic understanding is that 2.6 is more server related than 2.4 and in certain areas offers an enormous improvement, while in others its the same as 2.4. For desktop users, the kernel features aren't that great as its not focused towards them.

----------

## odessit

tecknojunky, did you test your theory? how did it worked out? my CPU usage is very high loading anything, however the system feels a bit faster than 2.4

----------

## Rainmaker

To the people who are having "trouble" with their performence:

what WM manager do you use. It seems that people using KDE are having problems, while people using Gnome have increased performance.

Is their anyone who thinks he / she has reduced performance who is NOT using KDE?

----------

## odessit

I was using KDE, than switched to XFCE4 (thinking of it, it is QT based...) with the same high CPU utilization.

I just wiped everything clean and doing complete reinstall. Expecting to have fully functional Gnome 2.6 system in the morning

----------

## Regor

I'm a very happy 2.6 user who is using KDE. KDE seems very responsive on my machine (Athlon Tbird 900Mhz) with 2.6. I am using love-sources, which adds performance tweaks beyond what vanilla has so that has some effect.

Along the lines of adjusting the priority of applications, I'd recommend giving app-admin/verynice a whirl. It automatically adjusts niceness levels based on system usage. I've found that it is a significant help for system responsiveness in the presence of running cpu hogs. For example I run setiathome all the time, can be doing an emerge or kernel compile at the same time, running xmms without any skips or other problems, and still have any other app I'm using, such as a web browser, be as responsive as if it was the only thing running. Not too bad for what isn't even a fast CPU anymore.   :Cool: 

----------

## Souperman

Just thought I'd mention my experiences with 2.6.  Unfortunately, I've just recently switched from Windows, so I never really ran a 2.4 setup so I can't really compare the two.

I'm using an nforce2-based board, Athlon XP 2600+, 512mb DDR400.  I've been using k3b to encode my DVD collection to DivX5 .avis (incidentally, a process I just couldn't figure out under Windows.  I just emerged k3b with my needed USE flags and it just works!  Yay Gentoo!  I digress...).  

Now as most of you who have ever ripped a DVD and encoded it to avi will know, the cpu usage stays at 100% while encoding, which is at least 3 hours for an average length movie.  I would've thought that would make the system pretty unusable for the duration, but I've been able to encode a movie, listen to xmms, emerge packages and surf at the same time with no slowdown, choppy sound, etc.

I compiled my kernel (2.6.4-gentoo-r1) with "preemptive kernel" enabled.  I haven't tweaked anything for performance.  I've seen mention of a scheduler but I'm not sure what that is, so I guess I'm using the default.  My window manager of choice is fluxbox.

In short, I haven't been able to make my system behave badly, even under serious load.  Strange that others seem to have performance issues though.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *odesit wrote:*   

> tecknojunky, did you test your theory? how did it worked out? my CPU usage is very high loading anything, however the system feels a bit faster than 2.4

 No, i did not.  I just don't have the time to mess with it.  I'm just using my gutsy gage and it tells me that 2.6 just plain suck!  

Reminds me my Windows 98 system.  When left opened for more tha 2 days, it would trash a lot.  Well, 2.6 does the same, just that it takes maybe a week to happen.  You click anything and it takes ages for seeing something happening other than hard drive activity.

For sure, my next desktop setup will be 2.4.  If I have mean to do comparaisons like the 2CPU article, my next server I setup might be 2.6.  Altough, I so disgust with 2.6 performances, that I might simply go for 2.4 until I see news in the world like "2.6 is fixed" or something.

btw, I use Gnome.  2.6 is installed on a Celeron 600 with 256+128MB ram and a 133mhz bus.  Hard drive is 5400 rpm ATA33.  But is not much relevant what the hardware is.  Like I said, I had 2.4 running much faster on this box.  I installed 2.6 from scratch, not over 2.4.

----------

## pilla

I had a 2.6 desktop for more than 30 days up and only 256 MB of memory without problems. Are you using mm-sources? They seem to be quite buggy.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *pilla wrote:*   

> Are you using mm-sources? They seem to be quite buggy.

 Yes, I am.  What sources are you using?  I'll try that one.

Also, I double checked my fsb, it was at 66mhz (clock speed of the cpu) with multiplier of 9.5.  I modified it to 100mhz and a mul. of 6.  CPU is detected at 900mhz.  It flies now, but I yet have to assess stability at this speed.

----------

## pilla

 *tecknojunky wrote:*   

>  *pilla wrote:*   Are you using mm-sources? They seem to be quite buggy. Yes, I am.  What sources are you using?  I'll try that one.

 

Try development-sources, which are just vanilla sources for the 2.6 series.

The mm-sources include patches that are not exactly stable and may cause stuff like memory leaks.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *pilla wrote:*   

> Try development-sources, which are just vanilla sources for the 2.6 series.
> 
> The mm-sources include patches that are not exactly stable and may cause stuff like memory leaks.

 I will.  I heard good of love-sources too.  It did (naively) not occured to me to try other sources, because I tried the Kon Colivas patchset with no significant improvments.  I dropped it because it's not maintained as much as mm-sources.

Thanks for the tip.  I'll report here if it does signifcantly improve things.

----------

## longodj

I've been using 2.6 for about 2 months now.  I noticed a huge performance boost the first time I use it and I have not seen a decrease in performance since.  It is much more reliable and the menuconfig makes a lot more sense.   Go 2.6!

I just got a new Athlon64 3000+ system i'm tryin 2.6 on.  I'll have to see how that turns out  :Wink: 

----------

## tecknojunky

I think I begin to see a pattern.  

Whenever I open a lot of programs at once, the swap partitions begin to get allocated.  When the programs are closed, I can still see the swap partition monitor indicate usage.  It never get down and system is still sluggish, even if I close evey open windows.

I installed verynice.

My system is still in that state.  Anything you guys wish me to try (to get results and id why it is in that state)?

----------

## Vallentha

Ive been using 2.6 kernels since the backend of last year runing mostly server stuff along with kde, no probs here seems way faster than 2.4.x kernels and 100% stable. currently running 2.6.5-mm6 on my Athlon XP1900 along with SIS 740 chipset and 512meg PC2100. Tasks running as follows. apache2,proftp,samba3,bind,squid,cups,kde3.2,varous other bits & bobs. all I can say is linux rocks.  :Very Happy: 

This machine just runns and runns for weeks on end, the only reboots required are due to me messing around with the kernel from time to time  :Cool: 

----------

## aethyr

I recommend using the newest vanilla kernel 2.6.6 as of this writing.  I believe it's the first vanilla kernel to include the CFQ elevator (previously found in -mm).  You can switch elevators between AS (default) and CFQ by changing the following line in your menu.lst file:

```
kernel /boot/bzImage-2.6.6 root=/dev/yourroot elevator=cfq
```

Note, these are disk schedulers, so it could potentially alleviate your problem.

Here's some stuff on swappiness that you might want to check out (highly recommended, as it might be directly causing your problem):

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/30/1238250

http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3000

In case you're wondering, swappiness is what determines when stuff gets swapped in/out.  Google will turn up more results as well.

You definately want to make sure that whatever harddrive your swap partition is on has DMA turned on (-d).  You also might want to turn on 32-bit I/O support (-c),  multiple sector  mode (-m), and unmasking (-u).  You can do this for your other relevant hard drives as well.

Also, how much RAM vs. swap do you have?

As a final possibility, are you sure you configured your kernel correctly?  I've heard stories about people getting poor performance that picked the wrong hardware in their kernel configuration.  You might try setting up a new kernel from scratch (without being influenced by an older configuration file), being careful of your choices.  You can always run a `diff -uN .newconfig .oldconfig` when you're finished to see if anything is missing/added compared to your old configuration.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *aethyr wrote:*   

> Also, how much RAM vs. swap do you have?

 

```
top - 08:08:59 up 6 days, 14:05,  3 users,  load average: 0.94, 0.79, 0.50

Tasks: 105 total,   1 running, 102 sleeping,   0 stopped,   2 zombie

Cpu(s): 58.7% us, 10.5% sy,  0.0% ni, 24.7% id,  5.4% wa,  0.6% hi,  0.0% si

Mem:    321220k total,   318316k used,     2904k free,     4904k buffers

Swap:  1052248k total,   428612k used,   623636k free,    48256k cached

                                                                                

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND

 8640 root      15   0  395m 119m  78m D 23.3 38.1 534:22.29 X

28947 tecknoju  16   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:32.33 evolution-1.4

29069 tecknoju  16   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.09 evolution-1.4

29071 tecknoju  16   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.16 evolution-1.4

29072 tecknoju  17   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.26 evolution-1.4

29092 tecknoju  17   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.00 evolution-1.4

29102 tecknoju  16   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.00 evolution-1.4

29103 tecknoju  15   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.00 evolution-1.4

29104 tecknoju  16   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.00 evolution-1.4

29120 tecknoju  16   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.06 evolution-1.4

29172 tecknoju  17   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.09 evolution-1.4

31984 tecknoju  16   0  113m  18m  27m S  0.0  5.8   0:00.25 evolution-1.4

 8030 tecknoju  15   0 61960  35m  37m S 15.9 11.3   0:40.66 mozilla-bin

 8050 tecknoju  15   0 61960  35m  37m S  0.0 11.3   0:00.00 mozilla-bin

 8051 tecknoju  16   0 61960  35m  37m S  0.0 11.3   0:00.08 mozilla-bin

 8053 tecknoju  15   0 61960  35m  37m S  0.6 11.3   0:00.35 mozilla-bin

 8089 tecknoju  16   0 61960  35m  37m S  0.0 11.3   0:00.00 mozilla-bin

 8753 tecknoju  15   0 39660 6904  21m S  0.0  2.1   1:13.64 evolution-womba

 8794 tecknoju  15   0 36024  10m  20m S 11.9  3.3  69:03.82 gnome-terminal

 8737 tecknoju  16   0 33296 5224  22m S  0.0  1.6   2:16.33 nautilus

```

----------

## aethyr

This is going to sound strange, but I think you have too much swap ;)  Therefore, since you have such a huge swap partition, lots of stuff is going back and forth between the hard drive and RAM.  Unfortunately the hard drive is many orders of magnitude slower than RAM.

I have the same amount of RAM as you, but I only use a swap partition that is ~128MB 

```
Mem:   321436K av,  251364K used,   70072K free,       0K shrd,    7316K buff

Swap:  136516K av,   58612K used,   77904K free                   89612K cached
```

Anyways, first I would suggest you follow those tips I previously posted since that would probably be the easiest way to fix the problem.

As a last resort I would shrink your swap partition.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *aethyr wrote:*   

> This is going to sound strange, but I think you have too much swap   Therefore, since you have such a huge swap partition, lots of stuff is going back and forth between the hard drive and RAM.  Unfortunately the hard drive is many orders of magnitude slower than RAM.
> 
> I have the same amount of RAM as you, but I only use a swap partition that is ~128MB 
> 
> ```
> ...

 Well, I was told to calculate swap size like this: ram * 2 + video size.  The hard drive was originally partitioned on a system with 512MB ram.

----------

## darksbane

I can't think of any reason having too much swap would hurt performance.. but there's certainly too much use of the swap going on. You could try turning it off for a while, to see if that helps performance at all. But of course, it'll limit what you can keep open. Have you looked around for any leaky processes?

----------

## tecknojunky

 *darksbane wrote:*   

> I can't think of any reason having too much swap would hurt performance.. but there's certainly too much use of the swap going on. You could try turning it off for a while, to see if that helps performance at all. But of course, it'll limit what you can keep open. Have you looked around for any leaky processes?

 What would be the best procedure to identify those?  So far, I can only assess memory usage, and it would seem X grows larger and larger depending on the numbers of apps running simoultaniously, but never shrink back.

----------

## WaVeX

You are using alot of swap. what exactly are you running most of the time?

I have 512mb ram and I can't remember when linux even touched swap.

You could try love-sources to add performance. and enable cfq which was said above. check dma.  

Is this the exact same system as the 2.4 was on? you just migrated over?

 *Quote:*   

> You also might want to turn on 32-bit I/O support (-c), 

 

Whats this?  I should enable 32bit I/O in the bios? Cause it was never by default. Or am I misinterpreting  this.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *WaVeX wrote:*   

> You are using alot of swap. what exactly are you running most of the time?

 Evo, Moz, Gaim and gnome-terminal are always opened windows.  Often I use oowriter, acroread, xine-ui.  Sometimes I use MuPAD and Gimp.  But most of the time i do stuffs on the console.

 *WaVeX wrote:*   

> I have 512mb ram and I can't remember when linux even touched swap.

 My other box has about the same memory space, and swap is never used.

 *WaVeX wrote:*   

> You could try love-sources to add performance. and enable cfq which was said above. check dma.  

 I just installed vanilla 2.6.6

 *WaVeX wrote:*   

> Is this the exact same system as the 2.4 was on? 

 Yes, it is a system with everything onboard.  There's no cards at all on the mobo. *WaVeX wrote:*   

> you just migrated over?

 Nope, installed from scratch using the 2.6 livecd.

 *WaVeX wrote:*   

>  *Quote:*   You also might want to turn on 32-bit I/O support (-c),  
> 
> Whats this?  I should enable 32bit I/O in the bios? Cause it was never by default. Or am I misinterpreting  this.

 The IDe controller can transfert 16 or 32 bits at a time.  My harddrives are configure to optimal settings.  There is no way I can make them go faster.

----------

## curtis119

Someone above mentioned verynice. When I switched to 2.6 I noticed jerkiness in the mouse and general lagginess in the GUI. I emerged verynice and customized the config. All problems solved. Using 2.6 is now MUCH more snappy and responsive then 2.4

----------

## aethyr

Technojunkie, not to sound harsh, but have you actually _tried_ any of the things I suggested?  You're making complaints about your performance, but you seem reluctant to do anything about it.

Again, I suggest you do 2 things (since you've already done hdparm): try 2.6.6 with the CFQ disk scheduler; adjust your kernel's swappiness (read the references I gave you for ideas on what's appropriate).

It's hard for people to help you when you don't seem to be trying to troubleshoot the problem.

----------

## Rainmaker

and you might want to memtest86 your memory, just to be sure.

----------

## anil_et

Hi

After going to 2.6 my system becomes almost unuseful when there is a lot of hard drive activity like updating portage or the install phase of emerge. My mouse moves very choppy, sound becomes jerky and the windows redraw becomes very visible.

I tried all the settings of hdparm

here is my /etc/confd/hdparm

```

disc0_args="-d1 -Xudma5 -c1 -A1 -m16 -u1 -a64"

 disc1_args="-d1 -Xudma5 -c1 -A1 -m16 -u1 -a64"

cdrom0_args="-d1"
```

Here is my output of hdparm -tT

```

puppy anil # hdparm -tT /dev/hda

/dev/hda:

 Timing buffer-cache reads:   2364 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1182.00 MB/sec

 Timing buffered disk reads:  160 MB in  3.01 seconds =  53.16 MB/sec

puppy anil # hdparm -tT /dev/hdb

/dev/hdb:

 Timing buffer-cache reads:   2308 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1154.00 MB/sec

 Timing buffered disk reads:  108 MB in  3.12 seconds =  34.62 MB/sec

puppy anil #

```

Here is my output of hdparm /dev/hda

```

puppy anil # hdparm /dev/hda

/dev/hda:

 multcount    = 16 (on)

 IO_support   =  1 (32-bit)

 unmaskirq    =  1 (on)

 using_dma    =  1 (on)

 keepsettings =  0 (off)

 readonly     =  0 (off)

 readahead    = 64 (on)

 geometry     = 9729/255/63, sectors = 156301488, start = 0

puppy anil # hdparm /dev/hdb

/dev/hdb:

 multcount    = 16 (on)

 IO_support   =  1 (32-bit)

 unmaskirq    =  1 (on)

 using_dma    =  1 (on)

 keepsettings =  0 (off)

 readonly     =  0 (off)

 readahead    = 64 (on)

 geometry     = 4982/255/63, sectors = 80043264, start = 0

puppy anil #

```

Is there any setting that I can change so that the system performs better.

Anil

----------

## pilla

There are many things that you can try, as the CFQ scheduler. However, maybe it's just the case of assigning priorities to some processes (using nice and renice).

----------

## curtis119

 *pilla wrote:*   

> There are many things that you can try, as the CFQ scheduler. However, maybe it's just the case of assigning priorities to some processes (using nice and renice).

 

Yes pilla is right. As many of us have said in this thread already. Many of the 2.6 series improvments  are for servers but they help the desktop too. If you use nice (try emerge verynice & rc-update add verynice default) you will see a huge difference in desktop performance. Make sure to edit /etc/verynice.conf and add your multimedia apps to the list of goodexe (if their not already listed).

----------

## To

I run 2.6 both on server and desktop. On desktop I usually use mm-sources, I'm with 2.6.5-mm6 right now ( 2.6.6-mmx had problems ), and I have a better performance gamming than I use to with 2.4.

On my server I have 2.6.5 from developement sources patched with the grsecurity for 2.6. Never had any kind of problems and it handles NAT, apache+php+mysql, nat for the intranet, ipac-ng for account the traffic, amule, gftp, pan and a q3a server. With all those apps I have to reboot now or then but much better performance.

Tó

----------

## Aurisor

Your problem sounds like a memory leak.  Mm-sources are one of the most bleeding-edge releases available on portage....I'd be rather surprised if such untested code DIDN'T have several memory leaks.

Before you knock the ENTIRE 2.6 kernel, why don't you try something a bit more stable?  I keep a build of gentoo-dev-sources in my grub just in case I'm going to be doing something where I can't afford any glitches...IMO it's not as fast as mm-sources, but very, very stable.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *ishan wrote:*   

> Your problem sounds like a memory leak.  Mm-sources are one of the most bleeding-edge releases available on portage....I'd be rather surprised if such untested code DIDN'T have several memory leaks.
> 
> Before you knock the ENTIRE 2.6 kernel, why don't you try something a bit more stable?  I keep a build of gentoo-dev-sources in my grub just in case I'm going to be doing something where I can't afford any glitches...IMO it's not as fast as mm-sources, but very, very stable.

 You are right.  I have definatly isolated this to be a memory leak from X, and/or maybe other too.

Restarting X reclaimed the memory like if I had rebooted.  So, i guess the mm-sources are not so bad after all.  :Smile: 

----------

## pilla

 *tecknojunky wrote:*   

>  *ishan wrote:*   Your problem sounds like a memory leak.  Mm-sources are one of the most bleeding-edge releases available on portage....I'd be rather surprised if such untested code DIDN'T have several memory leaks.
> 
> Before you knock the ENTIRE 2.6 kernel, why don't you try something a bit more stable?  I keep a build of gentoo-dev-sources in my grub just in case I'm going to be doing something where I can't afford any glitches...IMO it's not as fast as mm-sources, but very, very stable. You are right.  I have definatly isolated this to be a memory leak from X, and/or maybe other too.
> 
> Restarting X reclaimed the memory like if I had rebooted.  So, i guess the mm-sources are not so bad after all. 

 

Still, it can be something with the mm-sources and X together.

----------

## curtis119

Yeah, the mm-sources have always given me problems. Required reboots/X-restarts all the time. But Enemy-Territory ran great under it. I use gentoo-dev for day to day use now. Much stabler.

----------

## DynamicStability

Technojunky

You want premption enabled.

and Fix your nvidia!

it isn't that hard.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *pilla wrote:*   

> Still, it can be something with the mm-sources and X together.

 Two weeks ago, I emerged in the vanilla kernel and it did not change a thing regarding the leak in X.

 *DynamicStability wrote:*   

> You want premption enabled.

 It's active.

 *DynamicStability wrote:*   

> and Fix your nvidia!

 I have an onboard SiS.

----------

## pArt1cl3

hey maybe its a problem with your gcc,  I could not even get any 2.6.x kernel to run ( I would get an unablel to load root error, when in 2.4 the same grub setup would be OK) without upgrading my gcc 3.3.3 to the newest one, gcc 3.3.3-r5. ? ?

----------

