Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: An Update On The Boot & Power Performance In Ubuntu 10.04

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Add silent and cool operation and it's by far the best upgrade I've ever done!
    Agreed. My laptop runs so cool that the fan hardly ever turns on.

    I laptop already boots in about 20 second on Karmic so it will be very exciting to see how fast Lucid goes.

    I ran Karmic from the first alpha and had few problem (except with the change to the new version of GRUB) till I got to the betas. Then lots of things starting going wrong, I was getting maybe 5 crashes a day from various programs.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    36

    Question

    Two questions that come to mind.

    What about KDE 4.4, is that about the same speed as Gnome.

    And what really kills me with my laptop is how long it takes to turn off with 9.10. When you in a hurry to go somewhere those 20 seconds it takes to power down feels like an hour.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default Boot performance

    Bootcharts would be more interesting with comparison of ubuntu9.10+ureadahead update against ubuntu 10.04.(Which made huge difference for HDDs). Moreover 9.10 bootchart was counted to X start + 45 sek, and its counted different on Lucid so I don't think that you should compare where the chart ends. It would make more sense to compare where simmilar processes ended loading.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkCloud View Post
    Two questions that come to mind.

    What about KDE 4.4, is that about the same speed as Gnome.

    And what really kills me with my laptop is how long it takes to turn off with 9.10. When you in a hurry to go somewhere those 20 seconds it takes to power down feels like an hour.
    KDE cannot be as fast as Gnome, since it has so many more features. Still, on a cheap laptop I bought last summer (~500€, onboard intel video) I could not tell the difference.

    About the shutdown issue, maybe hibernate will do the trick?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkCloud View Post
    Two questions that come to mind.

    What about KDE 4.4, is that about the same speed as Gnome.
    I've installed KDE 4.4 on VirtualBox and it feels rather slow compared to Gnome 2.28 on the same configuration. However, someone mentioned that KDE 4.4 flies with the proper drivers (radeon on Lucid, IIRC).

    And what really kills me with my laptop is how long it takes to turn off with 9.10. When you in a hurry to go somewhere those 20 seconds it takes to power down feels like an hour.
    This could be a problem with your configuration, maybe a daemon that refuses to die or a hard disk that is slow to unmount (maybe it is turned off and needs to be turned on before it is finally unmounted? I've seen this happen before). I have three Karmic systems and all shut down in less than 5 seconds.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    Great stuff comparing both SSD and traditional drives. Hopefully this time around I'll actually see a difference too, not just the SSD owners.

    Still, I wonder what's the impact of moving installing kernel 2.6.33.
    Why use 2.6.33 if you use a SSD? Is that what you're asking? The 2.6.32 doesn't support TRIM and/or isn't activated so it's best to use 2.6.33 kernel if you are using a SSD which supports TRIM.

    I was looking into buying a SSD for my desktop (geez, I wish I owned a modern laptop now... an SSD seems like a required purchase with one now... talk about best of all worlds!). But, the Linux support in TRIM is in infancy right now. Not really stable compared to in Windows. I still want to get one and I'd just use it in Windows and the old/current HDD for my Linux.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    Why use 2.6.33 if you use a SSD? Is that what you're asking? The 2.6.32 doesn't support TRIM and/or isn't activated so it's best to use 2.6.33 kernel if you are using a SSD which supports TRIM.

    I was looking into buying a SSD for my desktop (geez, I wish I owned a modern laptop now... an SSD seems like a required purchase with one now... talk about best of all worlds!). But, the Linux support in TRIM is in infancy right now. Not really stable compared to in Windows. I still want to get one and I'd just use it in Windows and the old/current HDD for my Linux.
    Lucid is using 2.6.32. I was just wondering if using 2.6.33 instead does anything for performance.

    As for the other thing, I won't pay more than $1/GB. Nor do I afford to. So one more thing for me to worry about

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    Why use 2.6.33 if you use a SSD? Is that what you're asking? The 2.6.32 doesn't support TRIM and/or isn't activated so it's best to use 2.6.33 kernel if you are using a SSD which supports TRIM.

    I was looking into buying a SSD for my desktop (geez, I wish I owned a modern laptop now... an SSD seems like a required purchase with one now... talk about best of all worlds!). But, the Linux support in TRIM is in infancy right now. Not really stable compared to in Windows. I still want to get one and I'd just use it in Windows and the old/current HDD for my Linux.
    I read that TRIM has been supported since .28, but of course there's supported and supported well. If it was disabled that makes me wonder if there was a problem with the support. The only drives out I can see that support TRIM are really expensive any way.

Posting Permissions

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