The thing I'd like to know is if your running an ftp server, apache, mysql,
postfix, and three million other services. How do you check? at command
line:
services --status-all
If there are a bunch open, that's part of the problem. Your windows 95
system would expire on bootup if it was trying t
Could some of this performance hit be due to the 1 to 1 heavyweight threading
model used by Linux ? Both IBM and all the Linux developers I have actually
met say this is no longer up to date with POSIX standards and a pain in the
butt, especially since it allows disconnected child processes to
The reason why konqi starts slower than ie may be related with the fact that
linux writes the time you last access a file. I don't think windows does
that. This may be why it takes longer. Seeing that harddisk is so increddible
fast:) (but you can set this to off)
On Monday 16 April 2001 09:4
Civileme,
I will take you up on this offer, and write to you again in a few days.
First I will add the FastVram option to my XConfig file, check my hard
drive parameters (and specifications) on both machines, and make a list
of the daemons running on both machines, and gather the other data you
On Sunday 15 April 2001 06:30, you wrote:
> Bruce F. Press wrote:
> > Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a satisfactory answer,
> > clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a nice sleep(15) or
> > something!!
>
> What would be a satisfactory answer?
>
> Are you concerned because
ems' BIOS as the
> arbiter and executor of power savings - rather than
> the kernel doing it
> directly.
>
> Hope this helps...
> Gio
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce F. Press" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Se
Bruce F. Press wrote:
> Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a satisfactory answer,
> clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a nice sleep(15) or
> something!!
What would be a satisfactory answer?
Are you concerned because top shows the system being far busier than it
really i
the systems' BIOS as thearbiter and
executor of power savings - rather than the kernel doing
itdirectly.Hope this helps...Gio- Original Message
-From: "Bruce F. Press" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:52
AMSubject: Re: [Cooker
Yes, yes, we've heard this before. It is not a satisfactory answer,
clearly the "idle" loop in kapm-idled could use a nice sleep(15) or
something!!
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> SI Reasoning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins
> > at around 5
SI Reasoning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins
> at around 50% or more and the process spinning is
> kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2.
--=-=-=
http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-1:
1.Why is kapmd using so much CPU time?
(REG) Don't w
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, SI Reasoning wrote:
> There are good stretches of the day where my CPU spins
> at around 50% or more and the process spinning is
> kapm-idled. This is not a problem in 7.2.
Go to www.mail-archive.com/cooker%40linux-mandrake.com/ and search for
"kapm-idled" ; you'll see milli
11 matches
Mail list logo
