Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
On 2010/04/03 11:01 (GMT+1000) Chris Jones composed: Fedora did in fact reduce the number of VT's somewhere along the line. Fedora 13 has 6, same as Mandriva 2010.1 and openSUSE 11.3, and Knoppix installed to a HD. Maybe you're thinking about movement of X from 7 to 1 when booting Fedora directly into runlevel 5 (X). Since I boot into runlevel 3, X still goes to tty7 when I start X. -- Suppos [sic] a nation in some distant region, should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopa, What a paradise would this region be!John Adams, 2nd US President Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
too many virtual terminals by defaut
Hello, I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough. I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared. However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable process list, less processes context switch, ...). There is no small enhancement. Regards. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
Dear Mr. President. There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot! http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F16.html Why in the name of all that is good? My process list features 7 gettys, it's true, but they're utterly insignificant compared to the 194 other processes that come out of 'ps aux'. This includes over 60 system processes (denoted with square brackets). If you're worried about 'human readable' process lists, why not start with those? Moreover, some people actually use multiple consoles. For me, what you propose would be quite different from an 'enhancement.' IANAD, but it seems like you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist, then proposing something mildly offensive to fix it. -Brandon Jérôme Bouat wrote: Hello, I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough. I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared. However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable process list, less processes context switch, ...). There is no small enhancement. Regards. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
On one side, if you want to use many virtual terminals, then it means that you have enough skills to configure additionnal terminals. On the other side, if you are a newbie, you will possibly never use a virtual terminal. Thus I think the default configuration should provide only 2 virtual terminals. With default configuration (except evolution removed) : --- j...@j-d:~$ ps ax|wc -l 123 j...@j-d:~$ --- If we delete 4 unused processes, we decreases the number of processes by 3%. Regards. Brandon Kuczenski a écrit : Dear Mr. President. There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot! http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F16.html Why in the name of all that is good? My process list features 7 gettys, it's true, but they're utterly insignificant compared to the 194 other processes that come out of 'ps aux'. This includes over 60 system processes (denoted with square brackets). If you're worried about 'human readable' process lists, why not start with those? Moreover, some people actually use multiple consoles. For me, what you propose would be quite different from an 'enhancement.' IANAD, but it seems like you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist, then proposing something mildly offensive to fix it. -Brandon Jérôme Bouat wrote: Hello, I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough. I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared. However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable process list, less processes context switch, ...). There is no small enhancement. Regards. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 23:23 +0200, Jérôme Bouat wrote: On one side, if you want to use many virtual terminals, then it means that you have enough skills to configure additionnal terminals. I entirely disagree with this. I use multiple virtual terminals every day but would have no idea how to go about setting up any more. I'm sure it's Google'able, but I'd rather not have to hunt down the command. On the other side, if you are a newbie, you will possibly never use a virtual terminal. I also disagree with this. There were quite a few times when I was a noob that I needed to use multiple virtual terminals (for example, when my graphics card drivers failed, two instances of w3m in two vterms for looking up help, a terminal for compiling the drivers and a fourth for any other commands I had to run). This would have been much, much harder had there been just two vterms. Best wishes -- David Futcher Ubuntu MOTU Developer bo...@ubuntu.com david.futc...@bobbo.me.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Jérôme Bouat jerome.bo...@wanadoo.fr wrote: On one side, if you want to use many virtual terminals, then it means that you have enough skills to configure additionnal terminals. On the other side, if you are a newbie, you will possibly never use a virtual terminal. Thus I think the default configuration should provide only 2 virtual terminals. With default configuration (except evolution removed) : --- j...@j-d:~$ ps ax|wc -l 123 j...@j-d:~$ --- If we delete 4 unused processes, we decreases the number of processes by 3%. Regards. If you create a poll in http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ , I'll vote it up/yes ;-) Best regards, Flávio -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
Am Mittwoch, den 31.03.2010, 22:41 +0100 schrieb Max Bowsher: Jérôme Bouat wrote: Hello, I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough. I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared. However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable process list, less processes context switch, ...). There is no small enhancement. Jerome, A decrease of 4 processes would have negligible effect on the overall system process list. An idle process should have negligible context switch overhead. Thus your proposal seems to me to have no advantages, yet would disadvantage people who actually use multiple VTs and would depart needlessly from standards/tradition. Which amount of RAM do these additional four terminals consume? -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote: Jérôme Bouat wrote: Hello, I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough. I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared. However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable process list, less processes context switch, ...). There is no small enhancement. Jerome, A decrease of 4 processes would have negligible effect on the overall system process list. An idle process should have negligible context switch overhead. Thus your proposal seems to me to have no advantages, yet would disadvantage people who actually use multiple VTs and would depart needlessly from standards/tradition. Max. IIRC Fedora lowered the number of login terminals for reasons other than process/memory overhead - though I can't remember what reasons were from the top of my head ;-) BTW, does a terminal allocate any video memory when using KMS? I assume anyone using a high number of text/login terminals to be a server administrator? Is 6 enough? What about Screen? Best regards, Flávio -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
What about the system startup duration impact ? Max Bowsher a écrit : Jérôme Bouat wrote: Hello, I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough. I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared. However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable process list, less processes context switch, ...). There is no small enhancement. Jerome, A decrease of 4 processes would have negligible effect on the overall system process list. An idle process should have negligible context switch overhead. Thus your proposal seems to me to have no advantages, yet would disadvantage people who actually use multiple VTs and would depart needlessly from standards/tradition. Max. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
Jérôme Bouat wrote: What about the system startup duration impact ? What about it? My intuition is that starting a few extra VTs should not take significant time. Produce evidence to the contrary if you disagree. Max. Max Bowsher a écrit : Jérôme Bouat wrote: Hello, I think that only 2 virtual terminals instead of 6 would be enough. I understand that most of the memory of the virtual terminals is shared. However, it would decrease the number of processes (more human readable process list, less processes context switch, ...). There is no small enhancement. Jerome, A decrease of 4 processes would have negligible effect on the overall system process list. An idle process should have negligible context switch overhead. Thus your proposal seems to me to have no advantages, yet would disadvantage people who actually use multiple VTs and would depart needlessly from standards/tradition. Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: too many virtual terminals by defaut
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:57:10 -0300, Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com wrote: IIRC Fedora lowered the number of login terminals for reasons other than process/memory overhead - though I can't remember what reasons were from the top of my head ;-) BTW, does a terminal allocate any video memory when using KMS? No, at most it will claim 1 few kBytes for storing the terminal (character cell) content itself, but this is not video memory in the world of KMS. Only later is this data drawn to the framebuffer (which is video memory). I assume anyone using a high number of text/login terminals to be a server administrator? Is 6 enough? What about Screen? Your assumption is very flawed. I am not a server administrator and yet find myself dropping into VTs all the time. There simply is no good reason to reduce the default count, as far as I can see. The 5 getty processes incur no scheduling overhead (they are blocking on their ttys from the moment they start), have only kilobytes of memory usage, are used on a daily basis for who knows how many people. While Brandon's original tone was quite harsh, I agree with his sentiments. It seems like this thread is looking to solve a non-existent problem with a very unappealing solution. Cheers, - Ben -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
