Is Fedora 7 supposed to be this slow?

JimCockfield · #1 27th April 2007, 10:13 PM

I finally got around to trying Fedora last night. I downloaded the Fedora 7 Test 4 Live CD ISO, burned it to CD and booted.

I tried both the copy to ram and default run from CD options.

General perception....

This is the *slowest* Linux distro I have ever tried in my life, bar none (and I've tried a bunch of them).

I saw some comments in the release announcements that test releases are normally slower because of debug code. Is this the case with Fedora 7, or is this about "as good as it gets"?

The distro looks promising, since it includes a lot of newer software I'm interested in. It also works with my wireless (rt2570 based adapter). That's another plus.

On the downside, it defaulted to 800x600 with my Nvidia FX5200 based adapter and a monitor capable of much higher resolution. But, I was able to fix that from a Live CD with no problems. The only other "quirk" I saw was that the desktop went black overnight (probably the screen saver I set kicking in), and I could not recover from it without a cold "power down" reboot. But, it is a test release. So, I can forgive those little quirks.

Any thoughts on performance? I'm running a 3.0ghz P4 with HT and 1MB L2 Cache, 800mhz FSB, using an Intel 875P based chipset in a Dell Dimension 8300, and this distro is a real "dog" (to put it politely, as it's much slower than any other OS I've ever tried before).

Is this only the debug code?

Seve · #2 27th April 2007, 10:22 PM

Hello:
It is slower than what a release version would be due to all the debug options / code that are enabled [as far as I know]
Here, based on my own experience it is not slow, by any means, however I have not tried the live cd .
Again, just based upon my own experience, the live cd's which I have tried from other Distros's are noticeably slower than a hd installed version.

Seve

BigWaxer · #3 27th April 2007, 10:29 PM

Would say the same as Seve, Installed here and I actually think for the KDE desktop it feels more responsive then FC6. I haven't messed around with Gnome yet so no opinion.

LiveCD's., I get maybe 1 distro out of 5 to work so I cannot comment much about that. You seem to have some pretty good specs so not sure why it feels so slow. I doubt debug code alone would make things go so slow. Is it just bootup or everything?

Last case... Blame Beagle...

yum remove beagle

FunWithDirt · #4 27th April 2007, 10:44 PM

Well since you have probably tried more distros than me, I'm sure you are used to the live cd slowness. I just tried Ubuntu live cd a few weeks ago and stopped using it after afew minutes because it took so long for my clicks to register. Maybe I have a slower cd drive than others but i allways find live cd's to be annoyingly slow(with the exception of damn small linux). On top of that this was a test release so live cd + debug mode... slow. Is it slower than other live cd's you've tried?

JimCockfield · #5 28th April 2007, 12:26 AM

Yes, it was very slow (an understatement), even running from RAM using the copy to ram function.

I may try a hard disk install later and see how it runs that way. But, so far, I'd have to ran it as the slowest operating system I have ever used, on any platforum. It was running in slow motion. lol

I was hoping it was just the debug code. If not, it may be some kind of quirk with my hardware.

lazlow · #6 28th April 2007, 01:10 AM

It ran (in memory) a little slow. It was little enough in my case that I thought it was just the debugging.

Dies · #7 28th April 2007, 02:01 AM

Wow! I DL'ed the live CD to try it out and I have to say running from memory this thing just flies, that's not exaggeration.

If my FC6 installation ran this fast I would use it exclusively, I click on something and it just flies open, no delay like you would expect from a live system, of course it is running from RAM but still.

I'm going to have to say that any slowness or other quirks that some people might experience are probably hardware related.

Very, very nice, can't wait for final.

GrandpaGenocide · #8 7th May 2007, 02:11 AM

its the Live CD itself, I tried it on my other system same specs as the one I have FC7 test 4 installed on and it was about as fast as a dead cat.

Dies · #9 7th May 2007, 02:36 AM

Yeah, you're right I had nothing better to do than lie and say it runs well for me.

Seve · #10 7th May 2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dies

Yeah, you're right I had nothing better to do than lie and say it runs well for me.

Hello Dies:
Maybe your dead cat is less dead than GrandpaGenocide's dead cat ?

Seve

GrandpaGenocide · #11 7th May 2007, 02:44 AM

I killed that cat myself and its gonna make a fine dinner down at the China Star--- nothing like fresh food....
But on a topic point, I have two identical systems FC7 installed on this one and its probably the fastest ive ever seen this computer run, and XP on the other. I tried the live disk and it was just horribly slow

joe.pelayo · #12 7th May 2007, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimCockfield

I finally got around to trying Fedora last night. I downloaded the Fedora 7 Test 4 Live CD ISO, burned it to CD and booted.

I tried both the copy to ram and default run from CD options.

General perception....

This is the *slowest* Linux distro I have ever tried in my life, bar none (and I've tried a bunch of them).

I saw some comments in the release announcements that test releases are normally slower because of debug code. Is this the case with Fedora 7, or is this about "as good as it gets"?

The distro looks promising, since it includes a lot of newer software I'm interested in. It also works with my wireless (rt2570 based adapter). That's another plus.

On the downside, it defaulted to 800x600 with my Nvidia FX5200 based adapter and a monitor capable of much higher resolution. But, I was able to fix that from a Live CD with no problems. The only other "quirk" I saw was that the desktop went black overnight (probably the screen saver I set kicking in), and I could not recover from it without a cold "power down" reboot. But, it is a test release. So, I can forgive those little quirks.

Any thoughts on performance? I'm running a 3.0ghz P4 with HT and 1MB L2 Cache, 800mhz FSB, using an Intel 875P based chipset in a Dell Dimension 8300, and this distro is a real "dog" (to put it politely, as it's much slower than any other OS I've ever tried before).

Is this only the debug code?

You did not mention how much RAM does your computer have.

Dies · #13 7th May 2007, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seve

Hello Dies:
Maybe your dead cat is less dead than GrandpaGenocide's dead cat ?

Seve

LOL, that's quite possible, it's one of those newer dual core dead cats with 2 gigs of catnip.