Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Fri 24 Nov 2017, 00:18
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Beginners Help ( Start Here)
Dingo more efficient?
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts]  
Author Message
Bruce B

Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 11488
Location: The Peoples Republic of California

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 08:33    Post subject:  Dingo more efficient?
Subject description: Testing proceedures outlined
 

If you are like me, I'd have tendency to think each new release of
Puppy uses more resources in term of processing power and
memory, without really testing

I make this post after making various tests of Puppy's Full Install
on a Virtual Machine. The advantage of the VM is it's very easy for
me to change Puppy's environment, especially in areas of RAM.

Presently, I'm using / testing Dingo, the generic and official release
from ibiblio.

My basic computing habits are using a variety of text editors, mrxtv
terminal emulator with several tabs open as well as Midnight
Commander. And of course extensive use of SeaMonkey.

I'm using 128 MB RAM with a 60 MB swap file. One reason
why the swap file, other than it's a good computing habit, is to
monitor how often Puppy wants to use it. The answer is rarely and
when it does, it's only been less than a MB.

The primary utility I use for testing is the full version of free,
but I've renamed it to fre. The reason why, is some of Puppy
boot scripts use the Busybox utilities for booting and I don't want to
cause a naming conflict with Puppy's use of those utilities.

The advantage of the full featured free is it factors out the caches
and buffers, and has other switches which are not included with the
with the stripped down version of Busybox free.

Also, I've read numerous posts were people are using Busybox
free to determine memory usage and are arriving at wrong
conclusions, because it doesn't factor the caches and buffers.

------------

I don't query Barry often, but in this case I'd be interested if he has
arrived at a similar conclusion at least has a comment.

Comprehensive tests of Frugal have not been performed by me.
And in order to make comparisons I'd need to install a few of the
older versions. I don't know when and if I'll do that.

I've attached the renamed file fre so people can make their
own tests and conclusions. It works fine with Dingo, if it's missing a
lib file for earlier versions, please let me know and I'll provide it.

You can download and install to /root/my-applications/bin

Then extract on the TUI, gzip -d fre.gz, then
you can use it when you want by typing fre.

Conclusion, I'm beginning to think Dingo is a more overall efficient
distro, than some of its predecessors.
fre.gz
Description 
gz

 Download 
Filename  fre.gz 
Filesize  3.05 KB 
Downloaded  226 Time(s) 
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bill

Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 492

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 09:49    Post subject: Dingo "Speed and Effecientcy "  

Hello Bruce_B ,This is more of a question than a statement.I keep hearing the terms of speed and efficiency and stability and I suppose this is related mostly to the earlier processors and lower ram challenged computers,Is this the situation ? The reason I ask is that ,having been a distro junkie and having tryed almost everything that the good people allow me to DL and try,Puppy 4 Dingo has never once failed me on any of the systems Barry Kauler made native to the Dingo.I wish I could say that with many of the other humungus distros .The only time I have had problems is when I go off half cocked ,with a newbies enthusiasm and get in over my head with programs not native to the original Dingo.Usually this has been a lack of dependencies or a hardware anomalie that Mr Kauler could never have considered.How could he ? It is my understanding that Mr.Kauler is constantly trying to upgrade for things like wireless etc. Wouldn't you say that as he does,the programs are required to get larger ? Also is the small lack of speed really all that important ? cheers,bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Bruce B

Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 11488
Location: The Peoples Republic of California

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 11:04    Post subject:  

Bill: Hello Bruce_B ,This is more of a question than a statement.I keep hearing the terms of speed and efficiency and stability and I suppose this is related mostly to the earlier processors and lower ram challenged computers, Is this the situation ?

Bruce: Hello. It is only an observation of mine in comparison with earlier Puppys.

Bruce: In the days of single processors Puppy was a speedy computer. Computers today have multiple processors. Puppy only supports one processor. If you want raw processing power, I'd not recommend Puppy for the purpose when other distros have SMP kernels.

Bill: The reason I ask is that, having been a distro junkie and having tried almost everything that the good people allow me to DL and try,Puppy 4 Dingo has never once failed me on any of the systems Barry Kauler made native to the Dingo.

Bruce: I can't say I've noticed any problems either, although there probably are some, we'd have to read the bug reports.

Bill: I wish I could say that with many of the other humungus distros. The only time I have had problems is when I go off half cocked ,with a newbies enthusiasm and get in over my head with programs not native to the original Dingo.

Bruce: Nothing to stop you from making a mess of it. I keep the modifications on the conservative side.

Bill: Usually this has been a lack of dependencies or a hardware anomalies that Mr Kauler could never have considered. How could he?

Bruce: Not very easily.

Bill: It is my understanding that Mr.Kauler is constantly trying to upgrade for things like wireless etc. Wouldn't you say that as he does, the programs are required to get larger ? Also is the small lack of speed really all that important ? cheers,bill

Bruce: I suppose Puppy has grown 35 to 40 MB since version 1.xx. Adding programs, bigger programs does not constitute using more CPU power or RAM. For example Puppy included the Gparted program, it doesn't use RAM or CPU unless I'm using the program. There is no speed gain or loss or extra RAM to host the application, unless I were using Frugal, but my comments were only about a Full Install.

Bruce: What I really want is not for people to believe me per se. I want them to have a couple tools to use for themselves in order to do more accurate monitoring and make better decisions.

Bruce: So, I'm including htop with this post. Download it to /root/my-programs/bin. Extract it with gzip -d htop.gz, run it on the command line.
htop.gz
Description 
gz

 Download 
Filename  htop.gz 
Filesize  32.14 KB 
Downloaded  223 Time(s) 
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
erikson


Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 735
Location: Ghent, Belgium

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 11:07    Post subject: Re: Dingo more effecient?
Subject description: Testing proceedures outlined
 

Bruce B wrote:
I've attached the renamed file fre so people can make their own tests and conclusions. It works fine with Dingo, if it's missing a lib file for earlier versions, please let me know and I'll provide it.

Says libproc-3.2.7.so missing on 3.01. I took that lib from 4.00, plugged it into 3.01, and it works fine.

This full version is indeed an interesting addition at very modest cost (fre plus lib is 43 KB).

_________________
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --- erikson
hp/compaq nx9030 (1.6GHz/480MB/37.2GB), ADSL, Linksys wireless router
http://www.desonville.net/
Puppy page: http://www.desonville.net/en/joere.puppy.htm

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
erikson


Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 735
Location: Ghent, Belgium

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 11:55    Post subject:  

Bruce B wrote:
Bruce: So, I'm including htop with this post. Download it to /root/my-programs/bin [my comment: /root/my-applications/bin]. Extract it with gzip -d htop.gz, run it on the command line.

Another interesting tool, works fine on 3.01! Thanks Bruce!

(note: both fre and htop still require chmod 755 after unzipping)

_________________
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --- erikson
hp/compaq nx9030 (1.6GHz/480MB/37.2GB), ADSL, Linksys wireless router
http://www.desonville.net/
Puppy page: http://www.desonville.net/en/joere.puppy.htm

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Sit Heel Speak


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2595
Location: downwind

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 14:52    Post subject:  

Bruce B wrote:
In the days of single processors Puppy was a speedy computer. Computers today have multiple processors. Puppy only supports one processor. If you want raw processing power, I'd not recommend Puppy for the purpose when other distros have SMP kernels.
True in 2006, not true in 2008.

Puppy 4-alpha-6 has a 2.6.24 kernel, and there is a test version of 4.00-final with a 2.6.25 kernel, and the 4.1-alpha-3 has a 2.6.25.9 kernel, and all of these support SMP. It is possible that earlier 4-alpha's also support SMP, I haven't looked.

Last edited by Sit Heel Speak on Wed 16 Jul 2008, 19:29; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MU


Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 13648
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 17:04    Post subject:  

Quote:
Bruce: In the days of single processors Puppy was a speedy computer. Computers today have multiple processors. Puppy only supports one processor. If you want raw processing power, I'd not recommend Puppy for the purpose when other distros have SMP kernels.


On an Athlon 3800 (2 x 1900 mhz) OpenOffice 2.4.0 starts in 3 seconds in Muppy (using only 1 processor).

There are other important aspecs beside just the MHZ.
The only reason for me, to run Puppy 4 with dual-core support beside Muppy would be, if I'd use PovRay again (a Raytracer that can need hours to calculate animations).
Unfortunately, I have no time for computergrafics at moment...

Ok, "mksquashfs kde.sfs kde" also could profit from two cores Smile

Mark

_________________
my recommended links
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Bruce B

Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 11488
Location: The Peoples Republic of California

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 18:31    Post subject:  

[quote="MU"]
Quote:
Bruce: In the days of single processors Puppy
was a speedy computer. Computers today have multiple
processors. Puppy only supports one processor. If you want raw
processing power, I'd not recommend Puppy for the purpose when
other distros have SMP kernels.


I don't quite get the attributions on the quoting here. No difference.

Point here is multiple processors and raw processing power.

MU wrote:
On an Athlon 3800 (2 x 1900 mhz) OpenOffice 2.4.0 starts in 3 seconds in Muppy (using only 1 processor).


I've always had very, very fast booting. I've also used Full Installs
which are faster booting than Frugal. One reason for the fast
booting is not a lot of overhead. A single 1900 MHz processor
should have no problem lifting Puppy up. I've used the same
processor.


MU wrote:
There are other important aspecs beside just the MHZ.

The only reason for me, to run Puppy 4 with dual-core support
beside Muppy would be, if I'd use PovRay again (a Raytracer that
can need hours to calculate animations).
Unfortunately, I have no time for computergrafics at
moment...


Don't feel alone with time constraints. I'm more than completely amazed at all you accomplish, sincerely.

Some processes are CPU intensive and thats the ones I'm talking
about. For all intents and purposes rxvt will start as fast on a
computer half the speed of yours.

What I'm running are virtual machines. If you don't put all factors in
your favor, you can end up with some very slow emulated operating
systems. So slow you don't enjoy working on them.

So what to do? High end computer, with SMP kernel. No reason to
use one processor when you want and need to get all you can out
of the computer to have fast emulation, not to mention multiple
emulation.

Lots of people said Dingo would give me the SMP I wanted. I
stayed with Puppy looking forward to the day. The day came and it
didn't have SMP support.

What to do? Install a Linux that does support SMP and run VMs fast.

This doesn't alter the fact that if you want raw processing power from multiple processors you need the kernel support.

Bruce

I'm happy as a lark using Puppy in emulation. The bottom line is it doesn't and cannot make as good a host as the one I have. It won't until it supports SMP. That's just a technical fact, not meant as a criticism, and I hope the day when an SMP kernel is not long to come.

---------------

Sit Heel Speak - I didn't mark a date on the calendar when SMP computers became popular. I will say that in 2003 RedHat version 9 had the kernel for it. Also, DSL has had SMP support for a long time. They've been around a long time.

But I do concur with you that around just before 2006 and in 2006, they became what I'd call a standard, meaning it would be hard to go to the store and find a single processor mainboard today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Bruce B

Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 11488
Location: The Peoples Republic of California

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 19:09    Post subject: Re: Dingo more effecient?
Subject description: Testing proceedures outlined
 

erikson wrote:
Bruce B wrote:
I've attached the renamed file fre so people can make their own tests and conclusions. It works fine with Dingo, if it's missing a lib file for earlier versions, please let me know and I'll provide it.

Says libproc-3.2.7.so missing on 3.01. I took that lib from 4.00, plugged it into 3.01, and it works fine.

This full version is indeed an interesting addition at very modest cost (fre plus lib is 43 KB).


Yeah, they are so helpful and small I wish Barry would consider including them. I've attached ibproc-3.2.7.so for 'fre' with Puppy versions older than 4.00.

Downlod to /root/my-applications/lib

Run this command gzip -d ibproc-3.2.7.so.gz , that's it.
libproc-3.2.7.so.gz
Description 
gz

 Download 
Filename  libproc-3.2.7.so.gz 
Filesize  22.23 KB 
Downloaded  227 Time(s) 
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts]  
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Beginners Help ( Start Here)
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0580s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0076s) ][ GZIP on ]