Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 75

Thread: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cupertino, CA
    Beans
    5,092
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Quote Originally Posted by EdThaSlayer View Post
    Maybe that module detecting software can't detect all of the pcs hardware 100% so just to be sure that no people complain they just enable all modules by defaust. Hope I didn't say the same thing as someone else.
    No, that is not true. Ubuntu purely uses dynamic detection and it is highly discouraged to include drivers that require any sort of manual or brute-force probing techniques.
    Quote Originally Posted by tuxradar
    Linux's audio architecture is more like the layers of the Earth's crust than the network model, with lower levels occasionally erupting on to the surface, causing confusion and distress, and upper layers moving to displace the underlying technology that was originally hidden

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cupertino, CA
    Beans
    5,092
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve H View Post
    I guess I'm presuming that the modules were much like services in XP. I know I got some performance gain (not to mention more free memory) by shutting down/disabling services in XP.

    Is this a misconception where Linux is concerned? Would it not be of a benefit to at least free up some more memory for the system?

    Maybe its the geek inside that just wants the most efficient install and module tradeoff possible.

    No, modules are like Windows drivers (.sys, .vxd). Go around Device Manager and look at the Show Details tab for each listed device, then tell me how many "modules" are loaded. You don't disable modules unless you don't want the associated device to function -- which is usually not the case. Disabling a kernel module saves you about 16KB of RAM, which is just enough to display 1/4 of the star smilie in the edit page, so umm... it's not terribly useful

    Services are like... umm... services. They are loaded in /etc/rcS.d or /etc/rc2.d, and by default, Ubuntu only does the BARE MINIMUM for a fully functioning Ubuntu system. You can disable services using the configuration tool, or by hand-manipulating these two directories, but of course disabling the wrong services, JUST LIKE Windows, can lead to a mysterious loss of some functionality, which can be difficult to diagnose.
    Quote Originally Posted by tuxradar
    Linux's audio architecture is more like the layers of the Earth's crust than the network model, with lower levels occasionally erupting on to the surface, causing confusion and distress, and upper layers moving to displace the underlying technology that was originally hidden

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wolverhampton, UK
    Beans
    280
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Quote Originally Posted by jdong View Post
    No, modules are like Windows drivers (.sys, .vxd). Go around Device Manager and look at the Show Details tab for each listed device, then tell me how many "modules" are loaded. You don't disable modules unless you don't want the associated device to function -- which is usually not the case. Disabling a kernel module saves you about 16KB of RAM, which is just enough to display 1/4 of the star smilie in the edit page, so umm... it's not terribly useful

    Services are like... umm... services. They are loaded in /etc/rcS.d or /etc/rc2.d, and by default, Ubuntu only does the BARE MINIMUM for a fully functioning Ubuntu system. You can disable services using the configuration tool, or by hand-manipulating these two directories, but of course disabling the wrong services, JUST LIKE Windows, can lead to a mysterious loss of some functionality, which can be difficult to diagnose.
    That makes a lot more sense to me now. Thanks for that, jdong. i guess there is not much to regain from tatting around with modules, services etc. then?!


  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    Beans
    2,604
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Wink Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Well with Feisty Fawn and now early Gutsy Gibbon, on my several computers Ubuntu runs crisp and fast, certainly compared to the ******* dual booted on the same system. Now I'm an "ordinary desktop computer user" so I do internet, internet mail, internet videos, internet searching, Office word & spreadsheets, digital photo cropping & printing, LAN file sharing, and of course testing prerelease Ubuntu (also some X and a little K), occasional competitive Linux comparisons, etc. I don't do games and 3D, I'm not into eye candy. I'm into applications.

    From my standpoint, for example, Feisty is nice and fast on a 1 gHz Pentium, 512 mb, old 4G hard drive and 1280x1024 LCD. I'd like to see Vista on that system (no, I really wouldn't).

    Cheers, Jerry

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    UK
    Beans
    397
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    As said by Jdong, you won't gain much from disabling modules. On my system, there are a few modules marked as unused by lsmod which I don't know what they do or support but at most it would save me, what?, 500kb? You gain more by disabling some gnome applets.

    You can gain more (not much) if you modify the startup services and some programs run by gnome on startup. For example, why load all those wacom and nvidia things if you don't own their hardware? Logical Volume Manager? I didn't know the live installer supported that. EVMS? The same. But when you start changing these things, you're on your own. Most obviously, don't disable anything you don't know what it does. On the gnome side, I usually disable updates notification (I'll aptitude update, thanks) and also disable restricted managers (read my sig). However, the most noticeable gain is that I feel better.

    In short: did Arch run faster on my laptop? Yes. Did it take longer to configure? You can be sure.
    Now on... Thinkpad T400

    Latest news for radeon and/or radeonhd:
    ATI R600g Gains Mip-Map, Face Culling Support, 30th July 2010

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Beans
    258
    Distro
    Gutsy Gibbon Testing

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Nevermind
    Last edited by prizrak; May 3rd, 2007 at 04:13 PM. Reason: Nevermind
    Since I get asked alot, I am originally from Ukraine but am Russian by nationality. My nick means specter in Russian.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Beans
    258
    Distro
    Gutsy Gibbon Testing

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve H View Post
    I guess I'm presuming that the modules were much like services in XP. I know I got some performance gain (not to mention more free memory) by shutting down/disabling services in XP.

    Is this a misconception where Linux is concerned? Would it not be of a benefit to at least free up some more memory for the system?

    Maybe its the geek inside that just wants the most efficient install and module tradeoff possible.

    Yeah I used to do that on XP as well. There is a trade off, the system gets noticeably less stable. Especially SP2 would have hidden dependancies.
    Since I get asked alot, I am originally from Ukraine but am Russian by nationality. My nick means specter in Russian.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cupertino, CA
    Beans
    5,092
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    0 used != unnecessary module. It just means nothing is currently actively using it, or that the module does not mind being removed (i.e. it has a mechanism for disconnecting from userspace apps that use the device)

    I'm not saying that Ubuntu doesn't have room for improvement... if we can find some app that is performing particularly badly, then profile it to figure out where it is doing worse than our competition, then we can fix it
    Quote Originally Posted by tuxradar
    Linux's audio architecture is more like the layers of the Earth's crust than the network model, with lower levels occasionally erupting on to the surface, causing confusion and distress, and upper layers moving to displace the underlying technology that was originally hidden

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Fano, Italy
    Beans
    133

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Quote Originally Posted by maniacmusician View Post
    yeah, I get a lot of stuff that I don't use either...but the questions is why? If other distros have selective module loading why don't we? The comment does make sense, but on the other hand, you have to say to yourself, that this is a pretty obvious thing. Ubuntu devs must certainly be aware of it, and they must have all those modules enabled for a reason. So what's their reason? Is it worth taking a hit in performance for? How much performance will we gain by resolving this issue?
    yes,I know that's important, but it is slower than my xp, and I would like at least to be able to make it lighter on boot...anyway I hope there will be a change of attitude in this argument

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Gdansk, Poland
    Beans
    162
    Distro
    Kubuntu 6.06

    Re: Reasons for Ubuntu's relatively slow speed

    Quote Originally Posted by maniacmusician View Post
    yeah, I get a lot of stuff that I don't use either...but the questions is why? If other distros have selective module loading why don't we? The comment does make sense, but on the other hand, you have to say to yourself, that this is a pretty obvious thing. Ubuntu devs must certainly be aware of it, and they must have all those modules enabled for a reason. So what's their reason? Is it worth taking a hit in performance for? How much performance will we gain by resolving this issue?
    The same reason why Ubuntu installs so many packages by default and offers no choice during installation. To make it as newbie-proof as possible. Ubuntu is targeted at users who can't be bothered to set something up manually. (72 percent of Ubuntu users never used Linux before) That's why they made everything work in a preemptive way.
    Also, Ubuntu forces some choices upon you. I use KDE and Ubuntu Edgy updated from Dapper and earlier from Breezy. I had to install KDE metapackage, and with it I get a lot of programs I don't want, because I use only 1 kind of image viewer etc. You can't remove unneed stuff because kde metapackage depends on them.

    You'll find yourself thinking more and more about Debian. Debian installs only minimal system by default and allows much more customizing. It doesn't force stuff down your throat. And since Ubuntu is based on Debian, switching 'back to roots' isn't a big deal.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •