Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Two X-Servers?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vighy View Post
    what surprises me, is that this issue surprises!

    it's much that this is a known issue... and what surprises me even more, is that at ATi, they didn't know it!!!

    (...)

    nice, ain't it? :-)
    That's how we love it - Eating up memory and doing nothing
    However, how do you know that ATI doesn't know about it?

    EDIT: #22 says it all ;-)
    Last edited by NeoBrain; 06-14-2008 at 01:11 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,379

    Default

    Hold on Vighy, there's a big difference between "ATI didn't know" and "bridgman didn't know". The second one happens all the time

    This seems like one of those things which happens on some systems and doesn't happen on others. If we can get more info about the systems where it *does* happen then we can start to see patterns and have a better chance of reproducing it on one of *our* systems so we can do something about it.
    Last edited by bridgman; 06-14-2008 at 01:15 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,114

    Default

    I had this issue ever since I ran fglrx, for 2 years...

    AMD Radeon X1900XT 512

    I don't think more information is required as I had plenty of different configuration since those two years and it happened with all of them.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    This seems like one of those things which happens on some systems and doesn't happen on others. If we can get more info about the systems where it *does* happen then we can start to see patterns and have a better chance of reproducing it on one of *our* systems so we can do something about it.
    Okay, let's see then...
    Using
    an AMD Athlon XP 2400+
    512 MB RAM
    an Sapphire ATI Radeon X1600 Pro 512 MB (AGP)
    an ASRock Motherboard (don't know model number)
    256 MB AGPGART size
    Fedora 8: kernel 2.6.24, Xorg 7.2/XServer 1.3, KDE 4.0.4
    AIGLX & Composite enabled
    Catalyst 8.4 (8.5 has too much troubles recognizing my monitor and can't start a 3D enabled X server on another VT)

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    For the guys thinking that it's distribution specific, I'm the guy who reported that bug 1 year ago. I'm currently using the same installation (debian testing) with a "green company" card and the second X has gone away.

    Also, suse guys like to patch their things, so they can be ironed this bug by patching X. Suse was one of the rare distros that cannot be run with a stock kernel...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Interesting. I think there is a bugzilla ticket open on this already bug didn't realize how many people are seeing it.

    OK, looks like #702 - would you folks be able to add your system specifics to the ticket ?

    http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702
    It may be interesting to mention also how you did install fglrx. With ATI installer, packages produced by ATI installer or your distribution's packages ?

    HTH

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    23

    Post Same here ...

    Hey,

    I wondered the hell why I was "topping" two X servers ... I tought that may be usefull for ATI drivers to work like this, something related to crossfire to come ...

    Anyway, if it's useless, I'll kill the idling X server to get memory back :)

    Here's my config :
    ------------------

    Slackware 10.2 (32 bit ARCH)
    Kernel 2.6.24.7
    Ati drivers 8.4 (using ATI INSTALLER)
    X org 7.3

    I hope ATI will improve their linux support quickly ...

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Well I installed the Drivers via Portage / a Gentoo-Ebuild, which is probably almost the same as using the ATi Installer (not sure about that though).

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default Same here

    Tried the ubuntu stock driver and also the catalyst 8.6 installer, both have the same effect. Never had any problems with the ubuntu feisty install, the two processes only showed up after an update to Hardy.

    Ubuntu Hardy 8.04
    Kernel 2.6.24
    Xorg 7.3
    ATI mobility Radeon X600
    BIOS version: BK-ATI VER008.017M.192.052
    Memory Type: DDR SGRAM/SDRAM
    Memory Size: 128 Mb
    Memory Clock: 263 MHz
    Core Clock: 398 MHz
    Bus type: PCI Express
    Bus setting: x16
    Driver version: 8.50.3
    OpenGL version: 2.1.7659

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    /dev/hell
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hvbakel View Post
    Tried the ubuntu stock driver and also the catalyst 8.6 installer, both have the same effect. Never had any problems with the ubuntu feisty install, the two processes only showed up after an update to Hardy.
    They were already there, maybe you didn't notice.

    By the way it's impossible to hope ati will solve a bug just discovered in the subsequent driver for it's model of delivering drivers.
    We may expect the fix in the next release or in the one after the next.

Posting Permissions

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