longest without a reboot - Linux

This is a discussion on longest without a reboot - Linux ; On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:48:39 -0500, DFS wrote: > Linonut wrote: > >> What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away. >> >> (Even Linux code does that, too, though.) > > See OpenOffice.org: 10 seconds to launch on a supercomputer. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70

Thread: longest without a reboot

  1. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:48:39 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.
    >>
    >> (Even Linux code does that, too, though.)

    >
    > See OpenOffice.org: 10 seconds to launch on a supercomputer.
    >


    Wow! I had no idea I had a supercomputer in the palm of my hand. My Eee
    PC launches OpenOffice in 10 seconds on the first try and 7 seconds after
    that.

    Bug


  2. Re: longest without a reboot

    Linonut wrote:
    > * DFS fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.
    >>> (Even Linux code does that, too, though.)

    >>
    >> See OpenOffice.org: 10 seconds to launch on a supercomputer.

    >
    > And you wonder why they brand you as DooFuS?


    They're lazy and dimwitted?



    > I read once where a computer compiled the whole kernel in 7 seconds.


    Tell it to ubergeek Jerry McBride, who desperately "wanted to spend time"
    with a fast computer.



    > OpenOffice Writer comes up ready to edit in two seconds on my desk
    > machine.


    It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM and
    a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.



    > I don't believe in bragging, nor do I like it when others do it,
    > "justified" or not. The world is full of a vast range of combinations
    > of abilities and accomplishments, and it is unseemly to exaggerate the
    > importance of one or the other data points in that range.


    Don't call it bragging then. What do you have to be proud of, the way MS
    has their software empire to be proud of?




  3. Re: longest without a reboot

    bugbuster wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:48:39 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.
    >>>
    >>> (Even Linux code does that, too, though.)

    >>
    >> See OpenOffice.org: 10 seconds to launch on a supercomputer.
    >>

    >
    > Wow! I had no idea I had a supercomputer in the palm of my hand. My
    > Eee PC launches OpenOffice in 10 seconds on the first try and 7
    > seconds after that.


    Amazing, isn't it? Slow To OpenOffice is as bogus on your toy as it is on
    BlueGene/L.



  4. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:40:40 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > bugbuster wrote:
    >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:48:39 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.
    >>>>
    >>>> (Even Linux code does that, too, though.)
    >>>
    >>> See OpenOffice.org: 10 seconds to launch on a supercomputer.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Wow! I had no idea I had a supercomputer in the palm of my hand. My
    >> Eee PC launches OpenOffice in 10 seconds on the first try and 7 seconds
    >> after that.

    >
    > Amazing, isn't it? Slow To OpenOffice is as bogus on your toy as it is on
    > BlueGene/L.


    What's amazing is how dense you are. How long does it take for MS Office
    to start on BlueGene/L? My guess is about 50 years. Do you really think
    office apps are optimized to run on massively parallel supercomputers.
    Do you really think that massively parallel supercomputers are optimized
    for running office apps? Do you really think that office start up is cpu
    intensive? And why is it that OpenOffice starts up faster on my "toy"
    running 630Mhz and 1GB of RAM than your 3GHz P4 with 2GB RAM? What
    version of OpenOffice? Was that running on Windows or Linux? Or have
    you once again forgotten whether you even tried it before making the
    claim.

    Bug


  5. Re: longest without a reboot

    * DFS fired off this tart reply:

    > It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM and
    > a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.


    Maybe you should try running it on 64-bit Linux, then.

    --
    Tux rox!

  6. Re: longest without a reboot

    On 2007-12-29, bugbuster claimed:

    > What's amazing is how dense you are. How long does it take for MS Office
    > to start on BlueGene/L? My guess is about 50 years. Do you really think
    > office apps are optimized to run on massively parallel supercomputers.
    > Do you really think that massively parallel supercomputers are optimized
    > for running office apps? Do you really think that office start up is cpu
    > intensive? And why is it that OpenOffice starts up faster on my "toy"
    > running 630Mhz and 1GB of RAM than your 3GHz P4 with 2GB RAM? What
    > version of OpenOffice? Was that running on Windows or Linux? Or have
    > you once again forgotten whether you even tried it before making the
    > claim.


    DuFuS hasn't forgotten whether he tried it. He already knows he didn't.
    He's forgotten whether he previously lied about it, and fears he'll get
    caught telling a totally different "experience" this time around.

    --
    When I was a child we had a quick-sand box in the backyard.

  7. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Dec 27, 11:17 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    > RexBallardwrote:


    > I don't need another restatement of your wacko interpretation. I want all
    > the details you claim to remember, but shown to me by a 3rd party. You're
    > extremely dishonest and unreliable.


    Let's see what I can find:

    Here's one

    http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html

    "Samba 3 extends lead over Win 2003
    By Roger Howorth [14-10-2003]
    The latest Samba release shows Windows a clean pair of heels in file
    and print peformance

    Tests by IT Week Labs indicate that the latest version of the open-
    source Samba file and print server software has widened the
    performance gap separating it from the commercial Windows alternative.

    The latest benchmark results show an improvement over [Samba 2], which
    performed twice as fast as Windows 2000 Server when it was tested by
    IT Week Labs last year. Overall, it now performs 2.5 times faster than
    Windows Server 2003.

    In terms of scalability, the gains of upgrading to Samba 3 are even
    more striking. Last year we found that Samba could handle four times
    as many clients as Windows 2000 before performance began to drop off.
    This year we would need to upgrade our test network in order to
    identify the point where Samba performance begins to fall in earnest.


    http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchm...benchapril1999

    Sm@rt Reseller's January 1999 article, "Linux Is The Web Server's
    Choice" said "Linux with Apache beats NT 4.0 with IIS, hands down."
    The companion article said unequivocally "The bottom line, according
    to our hands-on analysis, is that commercial Linux releases can do
    much more with far less than Windows NT Server can." ... "According to
    ZDLabs' results (see test charts), each of the commercial Linux
    releases ate NT's lunch."



    c't Magazin, June 1999
    c't Magazin ran very interesting benchmarks of Linux/Apache and NT/IIS
    on a quad Pentium 2 Xeon system. These tests used custom benchmark
    software written by c't (available for download). Like WebBench, this
    test used a small document tree (10,000 4KB files); unlike WebBench,
    these tests also used a second document tree (1,000,000 4KB files)
    that was too large to fit in main memory, which tests the disk
    subsystem and caching behavior of the operating system.
    See also IT Director's summary of the c't tests.

    Here's their graph of performance on a single-CPU system on small sets
    (10^4) and large sets (10^6) of files:



  8. Re: longest without a reboot

    Handover Phist writes:

    > Rex Ballard :
    >> On Dec 26, 11:14 am, "SW" wrote:
    >>> Are you saying moving to kernel 2.6.23.12 from 2.6.18.8 will result in ..."a
    >>> 20% increase in speed, or 200% increase in memory capacity or file size."?

    >>
    >> No, but upgrading from a 1.2 kernel to a 1.4 then to 2.0 then 2.2
    >> kernel can give some substantial improvements in performance - in
    >> specific environments. 2.4 kernel added the queue based scheduler and
    >> virtually eliminated the bottleneck of spinlocks. The 2.6 kernel
    >> improved 64 bit performance and 64bit memory addressability, as well
    >> as 64 bit file addressing.

    >
    > Rex:
    >
    > I haven't read many of your posts simply because they're long and I have
    > little time. I'm glad I took the time to read that. Well said. You've
    > spanked your trolls well.


    How has he spanked anyone? All he has done is cut and paste the readme
    from the past few kernels. I am yet to see any upgrade to anything which
    doesnt include "improved performance in X,Y or Z".

    I note that Rexx is doing the typically "high level overview" thing again.

  9. Re: longest without a reboot

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    > No, but upgrading from a 1.2 kernel to a 1.4 then to 2.0 then 2.2
    > kernel can give some substantial improvements in performance - in



    Where can the 1.4 kernel be found Rex?



  10. Re: longest without a reboot

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    > On Dec 27, 11:17 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    > > RexBallardwrote:

    >
    > > I don't need another restatement of your wacko interpretation. I want all
    > > the details you claim to remember, but shown to me by a 3rd party. You're
    > > extremely dishonest and unreliable.

    >
    > Let's see what I can find:
    >
    > Here's one
    >
    > http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
    >
    > "Samba 3 extends lead over Win 2003
    > By Roger Howorth [14-10-2003]
    > The latest Samba release shows Windows a clean pair of heels in file
    > and print peformance


    Oh yeah? Well, here's something Windows can do that Samba doesn't:

    http://www.computerworld.com/action/...ntsrc=hm_topic

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    f u cn rd ths u r usng unx

  11. Re: longest without a reboot

    Paul Hovnanian P.E. :
    > Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>
    >> On Dec 27, 11:17 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    >> > RexBallardwrote:

    >>
    >> > I don't need another restatement of your wacko interpretation. I want all
    >> > the details you claim to remember, but shown to me by a 3rd party. You're
    >> > extremely dishonest and unreliable.

    >>
    >> Let's see what I can find:
    >>
    >> Here's one
    >>
    >> http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
    >>
    >> "Samba 3 extends lead over Win 2003
    >> By Roger Howorth [14-10-2003]
    >> The latest Samba release shows Windows a clean pair of heels in file
    >> and print peformance

    >
    > Oh yeah? Well, here's something Windows can do that Samba doesn't:
    >
    > http://www.computerworld.com/action/...ntsrc=hm_topic


    Application Error
    An error has occured with the page you requested. If you continue having
    problems, you can E-mail help@computerworld.com for assistance or submit
    a Help Desk inquiry by clicking here.

    --
    I can't decide which WRONG TURN to make first!! I wonder if BOB
    GUCCIONE has these problems!

    www.websterscafe.com

  12. Re: longest without a reboot

    bugbuster wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:40:40 -0500, DFS wrote:


    >> Amazing, isn't it? Slow To OpenOffice is as bogus on your toy as it
    >> is on BlueGene/L.

    >
    > What's amazing is how dense you are. How long does it take for MS
    > Office to start on BlueGene/L? My guess is about 50 years.


    What's your guess based on?



    > Do you
    > really think office apps are optimized to run on massively parallel
    > supercomputers.
    > Do you really think that massively parallel supercomputers are
    > optimized for running office apps?


    ROFL! Is that the latest excuse for Slow-O?

    "OpenOffice isn't optimized to run on computers! Why would you expect it
    to launch in less than 12 seconds?"



    > Do you really think that office start up is cpu intensive?


    Quit giving them excuses. They're already lazy enough.



    > And why is it that OpenOffice starts up
    > faster on my "toy" running 630Mhz and 1GB of RAM than your 3GHz P4
    > with 2GB RAM? What version of OpenOffice? Was that running on
    > Windows or Linux? Or have you once again forgotten whether you even
    > tried it before making the claim.


    I've been trying that OpenOffice crud for years, on Windows and Linux.
    Doesn't matter where you run it - it's a pale imitation of MS Office.
    Except for its cost, it doesn't do a single thing better than the MS gold
    standard.




  13. Re: longest without a reboot

    DFS wrote:

    > bugbuster wrote:
    >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:40:40 -0500, DFS wrote:

    >
    >>> Amazing, isn't it? Slow To OpenOffice is as bogus on your toy as it
    >>> is on BlueGene/L.

    >>
    >> What's amazing is how dense you are. How long does it take for MS
    >> Office to start on BlueGene/L? My guess is about 50 years.

    >
    > What's your guess based on?
    >
    >
    >
    >> Do you
    >> really think office apps are optimized to run on massively parallel
    >> supercomputers.
    >> Do you really think that massively parallel supercomputers are
    >> optimized for running office apps?

    >
    > ROFL! Is that the latest excuse for Slow-O?
    >
    > "OpenOffice isn't optimized to run on computers! Why would you expect it
    > to launch in less than 12 seconds?"



    12 seconds???? ****... what is it running on? An 80386?

    A 4 second start max on my 2.4G P4... running a compiled Gentoo version of
    OO.

    It only takes about 2 seconds after the first start.

    > I've been trying that OpenOffice crud for years, on Windows and Linux.
    > Doesn't matter where you run it - it's a pale imitation of MS Office.
    > Except for its cost, it doesn't do a single thing better than the MS gold
    > standard.


    Your opinions are irrelevant. If you don't like OO then don't use it... I
    don't use it, but my partner swears by it.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  14. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    > It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM and
    > a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.
    >


    Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE

    We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    would make linux 12 times faster than windows.

    I do realize that this is in no way a scientific approach to compare
    the two operating systems, and that there are better benchmarks, than
    to compare loading time of open office on a cold launch.

    My point is simply this, that windows is very competently constructed
    to run softwares created by Microsoft faster than software created by
    other companys. There is a mayor loading time difference in firefox on
    linux and on windows. There is also a mayor difference in the amount
    of resources that firefox hog on linux and on windows. I could easily
    have firefox up, with 20 tabs on linux, but if I do that on windows,
    the memory usage will slowly rise and suddenly, my computer will be
    painfully slow and need a restart.

    One of the reasons for this, is that MS doesn't release the specs for
    windows to other software vendors, giving it an unfair edge.

    One question to you, what kind of stuffs do you run on that computer,
    to make it so slow? I cold start open office faster than you do, even
    on a liveCD with Beryl running.

    /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok

  15. Re: longest without a reboot

    Ewok wrote:

    > On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM
    >> and
    >> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.
    >>

    >
    > Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    > My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE
    >
    > We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    > my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    > your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    > That is 4 times faster than on your computer.


    Guess what: DFS is lying.
    He brings this bogus "argument" since months, and it has been made up the
    very first time he wrote it.
    OO *was* slow to start. Way back
    It isn't any more. It takes 2 seconds longer to start than MS Office on my
    machine.

    > Since I use linux and
    > you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    > would make linux 12 times faster than windows.


    DumbFull**** would argue that it takes that long to start on his liveCD
    linux "install" and therefore linux is slow

    < snip >

    You will not get DFS to be reasonable, as trolling and lying is all he wants
    --
    Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?


  16. Re: longest without a reboot

    ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____

    > On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM and
    >> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.
    >>

    >
    > Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    > My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE
    >
    > We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    > my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    > your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    > That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    > you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    > would make linux 12 times faster than windows.


    OOo can be launched (from a 'cold' state) within just a few seconds on this old
    PC that I use. It's very fast.

    ....Too bad for those who still use Windows because _even_ if they choose Free
    open source, they are treated like second-class citizens.

    > I do realize that this is in no way a scientific approach to compare
    > the two operating systems, and that there are better benchmarks, than
    > to compare loading time of open office on a cold launch.
    >
    > My point is simply this, that windows is very competently constructed
    > to run softwares created by Microsoft faster than software created by
    > other companys. There is a mayor loading time difference in firefox on
    > linux and on windows. There is also a mayor difference in the amount
    > of resources that firefox hog on linux and on windows. I could easily
    > have firefox up, with 20 tabs on linux, but if I do that on windows,
    > the memory usage will slowly rise and suddenly, my computer will be
    > painfully slow and need a restart.
    >
    > One of the reasons for this, is that MS doesn't release the specs for
    > windows to other software vendors, giving it an unfair edge.



    "We should dedicate a cross-group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows
    technically more."

    --Jim Allchin, Microsoft

    "I am convinced we have to use Windows – this is the one thing they don’t have.
    We have to be competitive with features, but we need something more — Windows
    integration."

    --Jim Allchin, Microsoft


    > One question to you, what kind of stuffs do you run on that computer,
    > to make it so slow? I cold start open office faster than you do, even
    > on a liveCD with Beryl running.


    You're responding to Microsoft's handbook of FUD. Microsoft has all sorts of
    documents (and sites) that guide those who are looking for classic (and
    invalid) ways to dismiss Linux.


    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Run a Linux server, sit on your hands all day
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.15 1.35 1.26 3/139 2683
    http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative

  17. Re: longest without a reboot

    Ewok wrote:
    > On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of
    >> RAM and a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.
    >>

    >
    > Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    > My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE
    >
    > We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    > my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    > your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    > That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    > you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    > would make linux 12 times faster than windows.


    Actually, Linux is 50x faster than Windows.



    > I do realize that this is in no way a scientific approach to compare
    > the two operating systems, and that there are better benchmarks, than
    > to compare loading time of open office on a cold launch.
    >
    > My point is simply this, that windows is very competently constructed
    > to run softwares created by Microsoft faster than software created by
    > other companys. There is a mayor loading time difference in firefox on
    > linux and on windows.


    Firefox cold launch is about 5 seconds. Warm launch is far <1 second -
    virtually instantaneous (of course loading the webpage takes a few seconds).


    > There is also a mayor difference in the amount
    > of resources that firefox hog on linux and on windows.


    With one page loaded, Firefox uses 28mb on my Windows 2003 system.


    > I could easily
    > have firefox up, with 20 tabs on linux, but if I do that on windows,
    > the memory usage will slowly rise and suddenly, my computer will be
    > painfully slow and need a restart.


    Seriously? You need a new operating system - but then you already knew
    that.

    I'm working along just fine w/ 20 tabs
    http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/20_Firefox_tabs.png.

    And Rex Ballard insists he usually has "8 firefox browser windows (each with
    4-5 tabs), and often 20-30 other various windows" open on his Windows work
    machine.



    > One of the reasons for this, is that MS doesn't release the specs for
    > windows to other software vendors, giving it an unfair edge.


    Who told you this Ewok fairy tale?



    > One question to you, what kind of stuffs do you run on that computer,
    > to make it so slow? I cold start open office faster than you do, even
    > on a liveCD with Beryl running.


    I [occasionally] run OpenOffice - it's by far the slowest starting program
    I've ever seen. And it's no coincidence that it's open source.






  18. Re: longest without a reboot

    On 2008-01-02, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____
    >
    >> On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >>> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM and
    >>> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    >> My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE
    >>
    >> We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    >> my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    >> your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    >> That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    >> you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    >> would make linux 12 times faster than windows.

    >
    > OOo can be launched (from a 'cold' state) within just a few seconds on this old
    > PC that I use. It's very fast.
    >
    > ...Too bad for those who still use Windows because _even_ if they choose Free
    > open source, they are treated like second-class citizens.
    >


    If this ends up being a duplicate - forgive me. I had a problem posting
    the original - and I wasn't sure if it had worked. So, I reconstructed
    the post:

    Define "a few"? Here are my system stats (fresh reboot to ensure a cold
    start):

    tom@bob ~ $ uname -a
    Linux bob 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 #5 PREEMPT Mon Dec 3 14:02:36 MST 2007 i686 Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

    tom@bob ~ $ uptime
    04:01:12 up 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.24, 0.15

    tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor : 0
    vendor_id : GenuineIntel
    cpu family : 6
    model : 11
    model name : Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz
    stepping : 1
    cpu MHz : 1392.412
    cache size : 256 KB
    fdiv_bug : no
    hlt_bug : no
    f00f_bug : no
    coma_bug : no
    fpu : yes
    fpu_exception : yes
    cpuid level : 2
    wp : yes
    flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
    mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
    bogomips : 2814.99
    clflush size : 32

    tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/meminfo
    MemTotal: 513800 kB
    MemFree: 333484 kB
    Buffers: 10784 kB
    Cached: 92032 kB
    SwapCached: 0 kB
    Active: 87928 kB
    Inactive: 63372 kB
    HighTotal: 0 kB
    HighFree: 0 kB
    LowTotal: 513800 kB
    LowFree: 333484 kB
    SwapTotal: 500464 kB
    SwapFree: 500464 kB
    Dirty: 12 kB
    Writeback: 0 kB
    AnonPages: 48504 kB
    Mapped: 40628 kB
    Slab: 11352 kB
    SReclaimable: 5096 kB
    SUnreclaim: 6256 kB
    PageTables: 1156 kB
    NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
    Bounce: 0 kB
    CommitLimit: 757364 kB
    Committed_AS: 188928 kB
    VmallocTotal: 507896 kB
    VmallocUsed: 69296 kB
    VmallocChunk: 438020 kB

    Cold start:
    tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    real 0m19.605s
    user 0m0.067s
    sys 0m0.087s

    Now, if there is an instance already loaded, a second instance takes
    about half a second:

    tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    real 0m0.582s
    user 0m0.057s
    sys 0m0.077s

    A second start with no instances running:
    tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    real 0m19.446s
    user 0m0.063s
    sys 0m0.080s

    Yeah, it starts in a few seconds on my old pc as well - a few being
    about 20 seconds.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  19. Re: longest without a reboot

    ____/ Tom Shelton on Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:14 : \____

    > On 2008-01-02, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____
    >>
    >>> On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >>>> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM
    >>>> and
    >>>> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    >>> My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE
    >>>
    >>> We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    >>> my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    >>> your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    >>> That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    >>> you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    >>> would make linux 12 times faster than windows.

    >>
    >> OOo can be launched (from a 'cold' state) within just a few seconds on this
    >> old PC that I use. It's very fast.
    >>
    >> ...Too bad for those who still use Windows because _even_ if they choose
    >> Free open source, they are treated like second-class citizens.
    >>

    >
    > If this ends up being a duplicate - forgive me. I had a problem posting
    > the original - and I wasn't sure if it had worked. So, I reconstructed
    > the post:
    >
    > Define "a few"? Here are my system stats (fresh reboot to ensure a cold
    > start):
    >
    > tom@bob ~ $ uname -a
    > Linux bob 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 #5 PREEMPT Mon Dec 3 14:02:36 MST 2007 i686
    > Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
    >
    > tom@bob ~ $ uptime
    > 04:01:12 up 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.24, 0.15
    >
    > tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
    > processor : 0
    > vendor_id : GenuineIntel
    > cpu family : 6
    > model : 11
    > model name : Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz
    > stepping : 1
    > cpu MHz : 1392.412
    > cache size : 256 KB
    > fdiv_bug : no
    > hlt_bug : no
    > f00f_bug : no
    > coma_bug : no
    > fpu : yes
    > fpu_exception : yes
    > cpuid level : 2
    > wp : yes
    > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
    > mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
    > bogomips : 2814.99
    > clflush size : 32
    >
    > tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/meminfo
    > MemTotal: 513800 kB
    > MemFree: 333484 kB
    > Buffers: 10784 kB
    > Cached: 92032 kB
    > SwapCached: 0 kB
    > Active: 87928 kB
    > Inactive: 63372 kB
    > HighTotal: 0 kB
    > HighFree: 0 kB
    > LowTotal: 513800 kB
    > LowFree: 333484 kB
    > SwapTotal: 500464 kB
    > SwapFree: 500464 kB
    > Dirty: 12 kB
    > Writeback: 0 kB
    > AnonPages: 48504 kB
    > Mapped: 40628 kB
    > Slab: 11352 kB
    > SReclaimable: 5096 kB
    > SUnreclaim: 6256 kB
    > PageTables: 1156 kB
    > NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
    > Bounce: 0 kB
    > CommitLimit: 757364 kB
    > Committed_AS: 188928 kB
    > VmallocTotal: 507896 kB
    > VmallocUsed: 69296 kB
    > VmallocChunk: 438020 kB
    >
    > Cold start:
    > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter
    >
    > real 0m19.605s
    > user 0m0.067s
    > sys 0m0.087s
    >
    > Now, if there is an instance already loaded, a second instance takes
    > about half a second:
    >
    > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter
    >
    > real 0m0.582s
    > user 0m0.057s
    > sys 0m0.077s
    >
    > A second start with no instances running:
    > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter
    >
    > real 0m19.446s
    > user 0m0.063s
    > sys 0m0.080s
    >
    > Yeah, it starts in a few seconds on my old pc as well - a few being
    > about 20 seconds.


    Very odd. Which version of OOo is it and what did you do to it? ;-)

    On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to resort
    to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first time. Don't
    ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    02:20:01 up 23 days, 15:08, 4 users, load average: 0.38, 0.56, 0.82
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  20. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Jan 2, 7:25*pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ Tom Shelton on Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:14 : \____
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 2008-01-02, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > >> ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____

    >
    > >>> On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    > >>>> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM
    > >>>> and
    > >>>> a fast SATA drive. *It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.

    >
    > >>> Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    > >>> My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE

    >
    > >>> We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    > >>> my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    > >>> your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    > >>> That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    > >>> you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    > >>> would make linux 12 times faster than windows.

    >
    > >> OOo can be launched (from a 'cold' state) within just a few seconds on this
    > >> old PC that I use. It's very fast.

    >
    > >> ...Too bad for those who still use Windows because _even_ if they choose
    > >> Free open source, they are treated like second-class citizens.

    >
    > > If this ends up being a duplicate - forgive me. *I had a problem posting
    > > the original - and I wasn't sure if it had worked. *So, I reconstructed
    > > the post:

    >
    > > Define "a few"? *Here are my system stats (fresh reboot to ensure a cold
    > > start):

    >
    > > tom@bob ~ $ uname -a
    > > Linux bob 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 #5 PREEMPT Mon Dec 3 14:02:36 MST 2007 i686
    > > Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

    >
    > > tom@bob ~ $ uptime
    > > *04:01:12 up 6 min, *1 user, *load average: 0.12, 0.24, 0.15

    >
    > > *tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
    > > *processor * * * : 0
    > > *vendor_id * * * : GenuineIntel
    > > *cpu family * * *: 6
    > > *model * * * * * : 11
    > > *model name * * *: Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU * * * * * * * *1400MHz
    > > *stepping * * * *: 1
    > > *cpu MHz * * * * : 1392.412
    > > *cache size * * *: 256 KB
    > > *fdiv_bug * * * *: no
    > > *hlt_bug * * * * : no
    > > *f00f_bug * * * *: no
    > > *coma_bug * * * *: no
    > > *fpu * * * * * * : yes
    > > *fpu_exception * : yes
    > > *cpuid level * * : 2
    > > *wp * * * * * * *: yes
    > > *flags * * * * * : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
    > > *mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
    > > *bogomips * * * *: 2814.99
    > > *clflush size * *: 32

    >
    > > tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/meminfo
    > > MemTotal: * * * 513800 kB
    > > MemFree: * * * *333484 kB
    > > Buffers: * * * * 10784 kB
    > > Cached: * * * * *92032 kB
    > > SwapCached: * * * * *0 kB
    > > Active: * * * * *87928 kB
    > > Inactive: * * * *63372 kB
    > > HighTotal: * * * * * 0 kB
    > > HighFree: * * * * * *0 kB
    > > LowTotal: * * * 513800 kB
    > > LowFree: * * * *333484 kB
    > > SwapTotal: * * *500464 kB
    > > SwapFree: * * * 500464 kB
    > > Dirty: * * * * * * *12 kB
    > > Writeback: * * * * * 0 kB
    > > AnonPages: * * * 48504 kB
    > > Mapped: * * * * *40628 kB
    > > Slab: * * * * * *11352 kB
    > > SReclaimable: * * 5096 kB
    > > SUnreclaim: * * * 6256 kB
    > > PageTables: * * * 1156 kB
    > > NFS_Unstable: * * * *0 kB
    > > Bounce: * * * * * * *0 kB
    > > CommitLimit: * *757364 kB
    > > Committed_AS: * 188928 kB
    > > VmallocTotal: * 507896 kB
    > > VmallocUsed: * * 69296 kB
    > > VmallocChunk: * 438020 kB

    >
    > > Cold start:
    > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >
    > > real * *0m19.605s
    > > user * *0m0.067s
    > > sys * * 0m0.087s

    >
    > > Now, if there is an instance already loaded, a second instance takes
    > > about half a second:

    >
    > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >
    > > real * *0m0.582s
    > > user * *0m0.057s
    > > sys * * 0m0.077s

    >
    > > A second start with no instances running:
    > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >
    > > real * *0m19.446s
    > > user * *0m0.063s
    > > sys * * 0m0.080s

    >
    > > Yeah, it starts in a few seconds on my old pc as well - a few being
    > > about 20 seconds.

    >
    > Very odd. Which version of OOo is it and what did you do to it? ;-)
    >


    OOo 2.3.1. What did I do to it? Nothing. I installed it from
    source:

    emerge -av openoffice

    Here are my CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf
    CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"

    > On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to resort
    > to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first time. Don't
    > ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.
    >


    Again - define few. I showed you my times, lets see yours.

    --
    Tom Shelton

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast