RH9 slowness (& helpful subject lines)
gojomo at usa.net
Wed Oct 29 16:55:27 PST 2003
This is genuinely useful info. I'll now look into RH9 as a potential
primary desktop OS again -- after having been baffled by its slowness
last time I evaluated it.
Lucas, thanks for asking; Justin, thanks for answering.
I almost missed it, though, because it came under a senseless
subject line. Please don't hide useful information under
manic pissfest subject lines!
Justin Mason wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Lucas Gonze writes:
>>Speaking of kill files, does anybody know why Red Hat 9 is so much
>>slower than previous versions? I installed it on the beater box that I
>>lend out and use for emergencies and it's unusable.
> A few reasons:
> - - UTF-8 by default throughout the OS, including in the boot scripts; this
> means odd and/or non-optimized collation rules etc. make sure you set
> "LANG=C" instead of "LANG=en_US.utf8".
> - - some horrible wchar_t patches applied to various things. The RH9
> version of Tcl/Tk, for example, uses 4x the RAM for text areas, due to a
> patch that makes them use wchar_t instead of char. This *massively*
> screws up most useful Tk apps, like ExMH.
> - - apparently, RH9 came with block cache settings that are suboptimal.
> A thread here:
> and elsewhere notes that this helps:
> /sbin/sysctl -w vm.bdflush="30 500 0 0 2560 15360 60 20 0"
> My next install will run Debian ;) -- assuming Fedora doesn't sort it
> all out. The UTF-8 fiasco especially pissed me off.
> PS: re http://www.w3.org/2003/10/28-906-briefing -- go W3C!
> - --j.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Exmh CVS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK