PDA

View Full Version : Fedora 11 oh so slow.


IBMT23
14th June 2009, 05:46 PM
Fedora 10 worked without a flaw on my IBM T-23. (1.3Ghz, Memory 512MB, HD 30G) :). So yesterday I decided to upgrade to Fedora 11. I burned a Fedora 11 Live Disk and placed it in my T23, It was slow booting up and the graphics were extremely slow once the desk top came up. I've heard many others complain about the slow Live CD. So, I decided to do an upgrade from Fedora 10 to Fedora 11 using Yum preupgrade. Now here's were the nightmare begins. When it got to the final portion of the upgrade that states "This may take a while" it sure did take a while (it took a little over 12 hours). When the upgraded was completed and rebooted into Fedora 11, it was just as slow as the lived CD. So, for me, its back to Fedora 10 until they either work out the bugs or Fedora 12 comes out :(.

Gaurav Prabhu
14th June 2009, 06:28 PM
Which version you installed? KDE?
If yes, then it sure will be slow.

IBMT23
14th June 2009, 06:37 PM
I installed Gnome.

SlowJet
14th June 2009, 07:03 PM
The dvd does the best job for upgrading.(it uses --nodeps and does a comprehencive cleanup at the end.
But the updates are needed to replace critical packages from F10 to F11.
yum clean all --enablerepo=updates-testing
yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing

It works as good as or better than F10 on my machines (Pent IV 2.4 ht intel 865bgf and a Pent III 800 VIA Appollo-133 Nvidia n11. The Pent III is now running rawhide F12 and that work good too.)

Both of these machines above are faster than yours because of 2 things. memory and faster disk.

SJ

mohaas05
14th June 2009, 08:42 PM
I have almost the same specs (Gateway 200ARC, Intel Centrino 1.3ghz, 512MB RAM, 40GB HDD) and Fedora 11 is very smooth. A clean DVD install took not even an hour, and everything works smooth, even with compiz enabled.

I doubt it is a bug but more the configuration of your particular system.

MSK61
15th June 2009, 09:20 AM
Which version you installed? KDE?
If yes, then it sure will be slow.

Can you please explain why it's very slow with KDE? I really installed fedora 11 yesterday from the live KDE and it was damn slow(took about 1 and a half hours to finish). The CD activity indicator led was lighting every few minutes for just a few seconds, followed by a slight glow in the HD activity indicator led, and then no activity in both for some other few minutes, and so on.
However after rebooting my PC, fedora 11 seemed to boot from the hard disks pretty well(yes really in a very reasonable speed).

SlowJet
15th June 2009, 11:31 AM
Can you please explain why it's very slow with KDE? I really installed fedora 11 yesterday from the live KDE and it was damn slow(took about 1 and a half hours to finish). The CD activity indicator led was lighting every few minutes for just a few seconds, followed by a slight glow in the HD activity indicator led, and then no activity in both for some other few minutes, and so on.
However after rebooting my PC, fedora 11 seemed to boot from the hard disks pretty well(yes really in a very reasonable speed).

Well, you didn't list your hardware specs, so how would anyone know
Then you say it ran ok after the install, so there is no problem
All anyone can say is KDE uses more resources than Gnome and with the glitz turned up the video, cpu and memory will be used more intensely in the same amount of time.

For install of LiveDVD it has always required 1GB of memory (i. e. more than a 512MB system.)
And the hour and a half is really two systems, so the install part may have only been an hour.
And 20 minutes of that was filling in the info on the screens.

SJ

gogalago
15th June 2009, 03:25 PM
KDE is plenty quick on my system... and KDE 4 is finally getting sorted out properly too - shaping up very nicely in fact

AlexDudko
15th June 2009, 04:24 PM
In my case (Athlon-64 5000/ ATI graphics card, 1 Gb mem/ 2 Gb of RAM) Fedora-11 (Gnome) both installed and booted afterwards significantly slower than Fedora-10 (Gnome). It is also much slower than Ubuntu-9.04 on the same computer. All versions on the machine were 64-bit. The same decrease in speed was noticed on another computer (Celeron 1,8 GHz/ 1 Gb RAM/ video on-board) after upgrading from Fedora-10 to Fedora-11 with a 32-bit OS installed (used preupgrade). In each case it was tested with the same programs installed and the same configuration.
Although, I must admit that the system is very stable, looks very mature and works flawlessly.

Firewing1
15th June 2009, 04:41 PM
When you start your computer, right after the BIOS POST process, press a key to enter the boot menu. Hit "e" to edit the first entry and then use the arrow keys to select the line starting with "kernel". If you hit "e" again, you'll find that you can edit the kernel boot options - try removing the "quiet" and "rhgb" keywords, then press <enter> and "b" to boot. Is there a part of the boot process that's particularly slow? If so, please write down the line it stalls at and post it here.

roundboy
15th June 2009, 08:17 PM
Well, I have the same problem. But for mine, I created it, so I backed out the change I made, and the slow boot problem went away.

In post http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=210503&highlight=slow+hosts, which addresses a problem with sudo taking a LONG time to process a command, a workaround was provided. This workaround was to:
In my case the /etc/hosts file had somehow become corrupted and the DNS lookup was failing. Repairing /etc/hosts by adding a line such as this resolved the issue:

127.0.0.1 examplehostname

Where "examplehostname" is the name of my computer as reported by the command "hostname".

I did this, with a hostname that was not fully qualified. In another post on the internet it suggested that the problem is because I don't have a fully qualified hostname. But what does a fully qualified hostname look like? And now that I have Fedora 11 properly installed and applications loaded, how would I change my hostname?

Every time I booted after modifying /etc/hosts, it took many seconds to load anything associated with networking. But sudo worked great.

So, which do I live with? Slow boot or slow sudo?

Dave...

sidebrnz
15th June 2009, 10:11 PM
Neither. It's your computer, you have the root password, so there's no reason in the world for you to be using sudo. Just use su; sudo is intended to give people without the root password limited access to root privileges, not as a replacement for su.

klee
16th June 2009, 01:49 AM
Neither. It's your computer, you have the root password, so there's no reason in the world for you to be using sudo. Just use su; sudo is intended to give people without the root password limited access to root privileges, not as a replacement for su.

I beg to disagree on this one. If you have multiple users on a system, even if they know the root password, by using sudo, you get a log of activity to know who to blame.

This is the same logic with oracle schemas. You login with a user that has access to the schema, not the schema owner. If someone drops a table, you know who did it!


Just use the Hostname fix and continue using sudo. This should fix the user with the slow issue right up.


Ken

marko
16th June 2009, 02:01 AM
This is a working /etc/hosts on my F11 machine:

127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4
::1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6

But then I'm using fixed static leases on my home LAN so I don't need my actual host addresses in there ( have a pfsense firewall that
serves IP/hostnames according to MAC addresses on each host), so that's why all I have are the localhost entries.

klee
16th June 2009, 05:33 PM
This is a working /etc/hosts on my F11 machine:

127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4
::1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6

But then I'm using fixed static leases on my home LAN so I don't need my actual host addresses in there ( have a pfsense firewall that
serves IP/hostnames according to MAC addresses on each host), so that's why all I have are the localhost entries.

I am using dhcp. I had to modify the /etc/hosts file to include my machine name. Here is what my /etc/hosts would look like if my machine name was "klee".

## I have modified the following entry
127.0.0.1 klee localhost.localdomain localhost

It seems that in the Fedora 11 install, the machine name is not added to this file automatically. I did not modify any other lines, including the IP6 information.

Hope this helps,

Ken

roundboy
16th June 2009, 09:33 PM
Ouch! Don't you just hate it when you have to think, instead of going to FedoraForum for answers:confused:

I checked Google for a description of the /etc/hosts file, and came up with:
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Fedora/2009-01/msg03383.html
which gives some hints why the /etc/hosts file contains what it does for Fedora 11. But I agree with you that the hostname should be included.

I checked the syntax of the /etc/hosts file:Syntax

IP_address host_name [alias]...

Parameters

IP_address

The IP address that uniquely identifies the node. IP_address must be in internet "dot" notation. Refer to
Chapter 6 “ Network Addressing” for details on IP addresses.
host_name

Name of the node. Host names can contain any printable character except spaces, newline, or the comment character (#). Naming Convention: the first nine characters should be unique for each network host.
alias

Common name or names for the node. An alias is a substitute for host_name. Alias names are optional. Naming Convention: the first nine characters should be unique for each network host. From this, I think that hostname is simply an alias for localhost. So my new /etc/hosts file contains:

127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4 Eng-Lab-010
::1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6

By the way, this also works, both boot and sudo now work fine.

I'm not sure about the second line, if it should also include the hostname.

Should I submit to Bugzilla?

roundboy...

MSK61
19th June 2009, 01:04 AM
Well, you didn't list your hardware specs, so how would anyone know
Then you say it ran ok after the install, so there is no problem
All anyone can say is KDE uses more resources than Gnome and with the glitz turned up the video, cpu and memory will be used more intensely in the same amount of time.

For install of LiveDVD it has always required 1GB of memory (i. e. more than a 512MB system.)
And the hour and a half is really two systems, so the install part may have only been an hour.
And 20 minutes of that was filling in the info on the screens.

SJ

OK. My hardware specs briefly are AMD X2 4400, 2 GB RAM, Gigabyte motherboard K8 triton nForce 4, GeForce 6600 nvidia card.
So I think my specs satisfy fedora live KDE needs. And yes it worked perfectly fine(and fast) after installation, but I wanted to know if I did(or didn't do) something that slowed down the installation process.
By the way the one and a half hours are exclusively for the image copy process, not including the part for filling in the screens.

Gaurav Prabhu
19th June 2009, 05:24 AM
OK. My hardware specs briefly are AMD X2 4400, 2 GB RAM, Gigabyte motherboard K8 triton nForce 4, GeForce 6600 nvidia card.
So I think my specs satisfy fedora live KDE needs. And yes it worked perfectly fine(and fast) after installation, but I wanted to know if I did(or didn't do) something that slowed down the installation process.
By the way the one and a half hours are exclusively for the image copy process, not including the part for filling in the screens.

Something to do with your HDD. Maybe Bad sectors?

klee
19th June 2009, 03:13 PM
OK. My hardware specs briefly are AMD X2 4400, 2 GB RAM, Gigabyte motherboard K8 triton nForce 4, GeForce 6600 nvidia card.
So I think my specs satisfy fedora live KDE needs. And yes it worked perfectly fine(and fast) after installation, but I wanted to know if I did(or didn't do) something that slowed down the installation process.
By the way the one and a half hours are exclusively for the image copy process, not including the part for filling in the screens.

If you were installing from the LiveCD, then I would suspect a slow network connection. With the LiveCD, you don't get all of the packages, and anything not on the CD, which could be a lot, would be downloaded. If you have a slow connection, or get a really slow mirror, then this process can be painfully slow.

If you installed from the DVD, besides the disk check at the beginning that is time consuming, the process should be fairly fast. If it is slow, then I would look at the bad sectors suggested by the previous poster.

Hope that helps?

MSK61
22nd June 2009, 09:24 PM
I suspect a problem with bad sectors since the system is running quite fast after the installation. Besides, I have also windows installed on the same hard drive, and before fedora 11 I was also running fedora 10 on the same hard drive. Neither fedora 10 nor windows complained about bad sectors or slow behaviour.
For the network issue, I amn't sure if the live CD should really need the network for any reason. What I understand is that the live CD writes a pre-compiled image to my hard disks(the partitions selected by me or suggested by the installation process). But if it really needed it, then that may be the reason since my internet connection is really slow(256 kbps).
Thanks for the proposed reasons anyway.

Suphan Buri Instagram Photos - Nakatsu Photos - Kazakhstan Travel Photos