I've been using 11.04 64bit for a few days now and overall it's very nice. Only thing I've noticed is the boot up time is slower than 10.04.
Is there a way to speed it up?
I'm running an Acer Extensa 4420 laptop.
OpenSuse 11.2
LXDE (Latest version)
It used to have a lightening speed. But now every application is taking few seconds to start, even on Konsole, the commands take some seconds to get typed ! (I literally have to wait for cursor to move and commands to get typed on Konsole). Folders are taking some seconds to get opened !
I rebooted the computer but that proved to be useless.
Here the ps output:
Code:
anisha@linux-uitj:~> pstree -Apuh `id -anisha`
id: invalid option -- 'i'
Try `id --help' for more information.
init(1)-+-acpid(1054)
[Code].....
I carelessly didn't apply a couple of updates correctly a few days ago which led me to reinstall Ubuntu 10.04
But, since the reinstall the boot has gone from blindingly fast to average.
what would of caused this? It's a shame, the boot cycle was one of the outstanding highlights of Ubuntu,
Im experiencing a strange problem with 10.04. When it first boots up its reasonably quick (as snappy as Gnome ever has been) but after its been running for a day or two it gets ununsably slow and has to be rebooted.
I dont see how it can be anything to do with my hardware as it runs OK when first started. Ive monitored RAM usage and it doesnt seem to differ much. There's always the same amount unused.
I've recently noted that the boot process in my Jessie installation is occasionally taking longer than usual, not dramatically as in "really hanging", but still noticeably slower, during which some messages are printed along the lines of
Code: Select alla starting job is running (2 of 5) and also after that, once lightdm (I'm using the MATE desktop) comes up the screen gets painted slower as well.
Unfortunately, once the system is up and running there's no longer trace in the logs (either traditional syslogs or journalctl) of such messages, however what comes to mind is that I've just recently enabled persistent logging in systemd: could this be the reason of such (occasional) slower boot process?
Other than that, what else could cause such behaviour? What should I eventually check to ensure things are OK?
I am comparing distros of Linux on a computer with VERY low specs. I have a CLI only version of Ubuntu 9.10 running A-OK, but when I run lwm or just X the video flickers (which I believe is due not to the video card/driver but to the resources used). I have tried this with two video cards with the same result.
When I run puppy it flies with no setup.
I know that Puppy is designed for older systems (2.4 Kernel and all that), but is there any other reason why Ubuntu would be slow in comparison.
I am using the nv driver with a Riva TNT PCI Video card.
Not sure if i am correct but I was under the impression from all sorts of posts & videos that 10.04 was supposed to have a fast bootup. I have upgraded from 9.04 jaunty bootup is quite a bit slower than on the old version and is quite tedious is this correct? are there any logs i can upload to see if i have an error some where?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI've installed Ubuntu Maverick on a testing machine, a Samsung N510 (Atom N280/2 GB RAM), and I've been quite surprised that I haven't been able, due to slowness, to reproduce MPEG2/DIVX videos (using VLC).When I subsequently installed Windows XP, the videos were playing fluidly.Now, I also noticed, although this may potentially be biased, that the overall responsiveness of the system is a bit slower than when I use Windows XP (drawing speed of objects).I remember having the same feeling I switched (years ago) entirely from Windows to Ubuntu.
Why is video decoding so much slower on Ubuntu?Providing that the second point (desktop system speed) is not biased, is gnome inherently slower than Windows XP's GUI? Why, if so?
Why is Ubuntu slower and more unstable than Fedora on my laptop? I thought, as it is a more popular distro, it wouldn't be. I've only used it on my laptop for a couple of days and I already had at least 3 default software crashes. On Fedora, I had about one crash per two weeks. Ubuntu is also slightly slower. Opening the Social broadcast messages window took so long to open, that meanwhile, I totally forgot that I opened it.
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have EastLink cable Internet and I have the fastest residential service money can buy, I get speed test results of 30mbps down and 2mbps up, that being said, my Internet was lightning fast on windows and Mac but when I installed Ubuntu, which is my favourite OS, my Internet is very slow and laggy. Sometimes it could take several minutes for a web page to load and some torrents download at 1-2 MBps and some download at under 100kb/sec, some web pages load instantly, some take longer.
I've searched other forums I found was turning off IPv6, I am not really sure what that is but I followed the steps provided and shut it off but did not notice much of a difference. I am basically a beginner when it comes to Linux, I use the OS for my day to day school and entertainment. I listen to music, watch movies, do school work and such since I am a university student. I really love Ubuntu and don't want to be forced to go back to Win blows, I really don't like windows at all so I would really like to solve this issue and stick with this operating system.
I have an older IBM P3 laptop im running ubuntu on. And im wondering if there's a way to change the desktop environment to one which would use less system resources. Im currently running the default. I've used other distros way back in the day that would allow you to use KDE. Can KDE be installed and would this be a better option for an older computer?
View 6 Replies View RelatedI'm posting this here because I have no idea how to address this issue. I have an Ubuntu 11.04 with Windows XP on VirtualBox, Firefox 5 on both machines (virtual and real).I thought my connection was slow when I realized that the browser in VB was much faster than the one in Ubuntu.The problem doesn't seem to be on firefox because Chrome also is slow (I haven't checked Chrome in XP-VB).When I type an address in Firefox Ubuntu it takes a long time to show the page and sometimes the whole browser gets stuck for somewhere around a minute.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a 100MBit connection and previously when I used vista I had no problem downloading files at 100Mbit with my vpn provider. Hower the PPTP vpn connecion I'm using on ubuntu seems to be capped to 10 MBit.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI know there were threads on USB problems already, but there does not yet appear to be a definitive solution to USB speed problems on Karmic.flash drives are very slow to copy to. running lsusb in terminal, it appears to be running at USB 1.1 speeds, but even that doesn't seem to be the whole picture. When I copy an 800mb file to the drive the first 150mb transfer in a matter of seconds, then the mb/s seems to get slower and slower, starting at about 12 and ending at about 5. If I copy multiple files to the USB at the same time the problem seems to get even worse, taking about 10 minutes to copy 1600 m/b - less than 1 mb/second.
View 6 Replies View Relatedi installed ubuntu on my ppc g4 the other day and have noticed it has been WAY slower than osx 10.4.11.i am aslo having trouble playing flash videos, i have searched the problem and it has told me there is no adobe for ppc's using ubuntu... i installed gnash and swfdec in an attempt to get something, but its not working.
i would like to know if there is any solution to the video problem and any reason you can think of that my computer would be so slow. i only use my computer for music, videos and the odd game so if nothing can be fixed ill have to go back to osx.. *sigh* maybe give linux another try when i buy a better computer
I've been running 10.04 since it came out basically and my internet connection has been fine. After I got the last set of updates that came up on the update manager (which if I remember mainly contained an updated version of the latest kernel and a couple other files) my internet connection speed went from a decent browsing speed and file transfer speeds between 80-200kbps to an almost dialup browsing speed to file transfer speeds of a about 7.5kbps its very significant and very annoying it took 20 minutes just to make this post.
Also I've already tried changing my ipv6 settings.
I've installed Ubuntu to take care of network intensive applications (read P2P). I've noticed what many others: uTorrent was faster than Deluge (and of course Transmission, et al). I know enough about how torrents work to understand that the client should not be THAT important, provided its stable and knows its way around. But still, uTorrent was beating Deluge hands down. Well, after fiddling with all the configuration options in Deluge, I think I could've found the reason for it being slower than uTorrent.
The problem was only evident with poor seeded torrents. I started by noticing that uTorrent saw way more peers, and - most importantly - some more seeds. Sometimes Deluge saw zero seeds and 2 peers, while uTorrent was seeing 2 seeds, and 16 peers. And that was the difference between one happy torrent, and a ditched torrent. But I'm rambling so I'll just say it : Deluge only uses one tracker from a multi-tracker torrent, while uTorrent uses all of them. So in uTorrent you just add the torrent and that's it, while in Deluge you have to force it to check the other trackers by changing the priorities of every one to that each one be at the top of the list long enough for Deluge to get the seed/peers from it.
Installed 11.04 on my Acer Aspire 5742-6674. It has a Atheros adapter. In my Windows 7 partition, its a AR5B95. But Ubuntu is says its a AR9287. I'm using the ath9k driver, version 2.6.38-8-generic-pae. I tried the following:
Code:
sudo -s
echo "options ath9k nohwcrypt=1" > /etc/modprobe.d/ath9k.conf
reboot
Still not working right. My wifi works ok at first...gets slower and slower...and eventually times out on everything. At that point, I have to restart the computer so it can work normally for a short time. Works totally fine when wired. Works totally fine wired or wireless on my Windows 7 partition. Both wired and wireless worked fine when I was using 10.10.
I switched to Crunchbang Statler (based on Squeeze) from ubuntu 10.04 on my desktop about a month ago, and I'm loving it. I have one small issue though:My desktop machine (statler) acts as a file server using samba shares for my HTPC (ubuntu 10.04), with movies and music streaming over a hardwired powerline network. Before I switched to statler, the network performed flawlessly - I could stream all of my 1080p movies (mkv, ripped using handbrake's "high profile") and never saw any issues.Since I switched to Statler for my file server, I've been having constant buffering pauses on the HTPC when playing 1080p content. 720p plays ok, but I've also noticed it takes much longer for the movies (and music) to start playing.Networking is an area I'm pretty clueless about, but I had a working setup before. The samba shares are essentially the same, and nothing else has changed in my network. Files play ok on the desktop machine
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have been running opensuse 11.2 successfully on my IBM NetVista 1.8 GHz for a year or more. Response is quick, no problems.
Downloaded the DVD for 11.3 and installed it (new install replacing the / system partition but leaving /home intact, renamed /home...kde4 to .kde4old). Install was fine, but on final boot the response of 11.3 was noticeably slower than 11.2, I would estimate about half speed. I tried compiling a new kernel to see if it improved, but the kernel compile was taking for ever so I stopped it. Editing the kickoff menu was close to impossible - saving a change resulted in "Updating system configuration" which would crawl to 100% and then start over again; after the 5th iteration I cancelled it.
In fact this got so bad (slowness, odd errors) that I am in the process of restoring 11.2. This new install of 11.2 is noticeably faster again than the 11.3.
My system has a good hard drive and 1GB memory. Am I underpowered for something in 11.3? I could not figure that there was anything specifically different in 11.3 that could be disabled to restore the speed of 11.2.
I am doing backups and restores to and from a backup server machine in the garage (in case of fire or theft) using rsync, and the LAN is running much slower than I think it should. Best consistent speed I get is 40Mb/s. The lights on the interface cards indicate it's in Gb mode, and the interfaces are fairly new. The router is a Netgear WNDR3700 the top-of-the-line consumer-grade router. Hardwire only, using Ubiquiti ToughCable and ToughConnectors, less than a 50' run.
View 12 Replies View RelatedBasically the caps lock button responds slower in Ubuntu than it does on Windows, leading my capitalization to REad LIke THIs. Should I give up and learn to use shift?
View 8 Replies View RelatedI have a 2-year old DELL XPS M1330. I used to have Windows Vista on it, but over time, I believe it became clogged with too many programs and so I wiped the hard drive and installed ubuntu 10.04 LTS about 2 weeks ago. However, ubuntu many times seems to run slower than vista did. I have 4 GB of RAM, an Intel Core 2 Duo T8100 (2.1 GHz, 3MB Cache, 800MHz FSB), 320GB HDD, 128MB nVIDIA GeForce 8400M. Ubuntu recognizes me as having dual processors at 2.1 GHz and 3.4GB RAM, but when I'm watching a simple video, whether online or locally on the computer, my CPU usage invariably jumps to 100% and it lags. Sometimes, even simple word processing makes it slow significantly.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI just reinstalled my OS (Ubuntu 10.04) and on a new and faster drive than before. And now it's running slower! I was an IDE drive before and not it's SATA and at higher RPM's. The first thing I noticed was that my game, "Armagetron" was not the same. The graphics are really screwed up in it. It looks like a diff version altogether! And I can't find any other versions. Also the controls were different! I have never had to change the controls before. This is what it use to look like before the format: [URL]. This is what it looks like now: Then I played some other games just to see and test. They don't look different but they definitely LAG.....
View 5 Replies View RelatedI got the new 10.3 web flash player, but every flash application get the worse quality I never see. In 10.1, I get better speed, better results, better rendering.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI put ubuntu on an old 3 ghz p4 and I went on to ....., the video was choppy especially when I switched to fullscreen. I have heard that flash is slower in linux, but here's the thing I have an old live cd for a distro called artistx, I think I burned in 2008, and I remember watching flash videos fine on it. I put it in the pc just to test it and then after it booted I went to ..... and watched the same video in 480p and fullscreen and it played back smoothly. Has flash gotten slower or is it ubuntu?
View 3 Replies View RelatedJust installed the latest 11.04 64bit ubuntu, using std cd install alongside windows7, ticking the "add all extras" option, to ensure I got all the latest drivers etc.. The pc is brand new
Acer emachines E644 - AMD 2 Core C-50
3Gb DDR3 mem
500 Gb hard drive
Pre-installed: 64bit Win 7 home premium I've literally changed nothing in win7 other than using wubi to install ubuntu 1st time around (ubuntu appears as a win program - and was un-installed as such). Note: It is too late to now check, but......... under wubi/win7 I had no sense that the browser firefox was running slow - i didn't do a speedtest.net cos of other priorities (and it seemed fine). On advice, I started again (new partitions etc). The Problem: Ubuntu is now 25% slower (broadband) than Win7! Actually, it feels worse than that - more like it was on my previous lap top that had 512Mb ram running xp. Here are the results after switching os's a couple of times.
[Code]....
Firefox managed one spurious result of 5.89, but the graph (on the speedtest display) was absolutely all over the shop (like it's overall results). Compare that to iExplorer - total stability, and in fact, more like 30% faster + a much better ping. Anyway, I guess you know all this, I've seen that plenty of others have noticed this speed drop in the past, so:
I used www.speedtest.net to test my download through firefox first on vista and then on Ubuntu (9.04) - it is a dual boot machine.
Whilst I get between 18 and 19 mbs on Vista I only get 4.5 on Ubuntu - how do I fix this - is it an issue with my ethernet drivers or my setup?
I am on a 20mbs cable modem - I connect via an ethernet cable to a router - which obviously connects to the cable modem.
I first noticed the disparity when I was moving some ISO files from Maverick to another partition. It was around 12-15 mb/s, where later I found Lucid to be around 30-50 mb/s.I then dropped into a VT and tried both from there, and discovered Maverick still much slower.thinking it may be the newer Nautilus, I re-booted and telinit 3, first using Maverick then Lucid.Lucid moved several gigabytes of data from one partition to another. It finished in "0m5.290s" where Maverick using the same computer and exact same data, moving to the exact same location "0m8.870s", Maverick being almost 60% slower.Not sure now where to look. Perhaps a newer library, or extra process being in use. Using telinit 3, I never loaded anything else. Is there any tools that can trace the moves.
View 5 Replies View RelatedI have a dual boot machine with Fedora 12 and XP SP2.
Recently I tested download performance using www.speedtest.net. Using seamonkey on XP, i got 22 Mbps on my Comcast ISP. Not bad! However I then tried the same test on Fedora 12 with F12 seamonkey and got 16 Mbps. Thinking it must just be seamonkey, I tried the F12 Firefox and got 12 Mbps
This seems like a pretty big difference. I checked around on google and found several threads decying slower mozilla performance on Linux. I tried the suggestions to turn off ipv6 support, but there was not much improvement.