Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: insomnia on 28 July 2004, 07:01
-
I recently bought 3 old i486 CPU for 10 Euro.
I just made a LAN connection with them using Vector Linux 4.3 beta 2.
I'm amazed about it.
This didn't took more than 1 hour for all 3 CPUs.
Vector(Slackware based) is very easy to configure(it's all auto) and optimized to work on old systems(a real fast diet distro).
So far I like it.
Since their have been a few topics to claim the opposite, this distro shows Linux can make your old(and new) hardware become very fast again.
http://www.vectorlinux.com/ (http://www.vectorlinux.com/)
(should be added on the front page)
(http://graemlins/tux.gif)
[ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
This just looks like Slackware Rehashed...what exactly did they do to Vector to make it easier? :confused:
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
This just looks like Slackware Rehashed...what exactly did they do to Vector to make it easier? :confused:
It's all auto configure.
Also, it only uses small, stable and fast software.
Ps: Even LQ made a new forum for it.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/forumdisplay.php?forumid=36 (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/forumdisplay.php?forumid=36)
[ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
Auto-Configure via GUI, you mean?
Slack has lots of auto-configure too, like, it detected my sound card right off, and it can do some video card probing (though I prefer the manual setup myself). They should put up some screenshots of their GUI setup, if it exists. (http://smile.gif)
/end Slackware fanboyism. :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Auto-Configure via GUI, you mean?
Slack has lots of auto-configure too, like, it detected my sound card right off, and it can do some video card probing (though I prefer the manual setup myself). They should put up some screenshots of their GUI setup, if it exists. (http://smile.gif)
/end Slackware fanboyism. :D
Don't get me wrong.
I started using Slack from day one and I still think it's the best distro out there.
However if you're new in UNIX/Linux, you'll find Slackware 10 more optimized fot i686.
Vector Linux is a very easy way to make your old CPUs run a powerfull and updated OS.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
They should put up some screenshots of their GUI setup, if it exists. (http://smile.gif)
http://www.vectorlinux.com/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=19&page_id=10 (http://www.vectorlinux.com/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=19&page_id=10)
It's installer does everything...
[ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
This looks very kule!
Is it as easy to, use, setup and intall as Red Hat 9?
Even if it's a bit harder I'm not bothered it still looks fanny fucking fantastic!
What sort of install did you do graphical or just text?
How much memory did the PC have?
How much disk space did it use?
Was the performance aceptable?
I bet this distro will fly on my machine!
-
I thought about installing Vector back when I had Mandrake. I read some reviews and people didin't like it much...
So I tried Slackware anyway, and it's pretty easy to install anyway (not Mandrake/Linspire easy, but yeah) (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
I thought about installing Vector back when I had Mandrake. I read some reviews and people didin't like it much...
So I tried Slackware anyway, and it's pretty easy to install anyway (not Mandrake/Linspire easy, but yeah) (http://smile.gif)
What some don't understand, a distro that is optimized for i486, will not perform better on i686(even less).
If you want to give VL a try on i686 or better, use it's 'soho' version:
http://www.vectorlinux.com/article.php?sid=16&PHPSESSID=ddd67afd4561ecf13acbbf1cbaa22de4 (http://www.vectorlinux.com/article.php?sid=16&PHPSESSID=ddd67afd4561ecf13acbbf1cbaa22de4)
-
Just read more about Vector Linux, I've read the reviews and minimum requirements, and looks even better than I originally thought!
It appears to be a good newb distro with the most features and minimum bloat! (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
The first version has more features than WinDOS 95 with similar memory usage!
VL4 should fly on my machine.
I hope its sill being developed, the forum doesn
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Just read more about Vector Linux, I've read the reviews and minimum requirements, and looks even better than I originally thought!
It appears to be a good newb distro with the most features and minimum bloat! (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
The first version has more features than WinDOS 95 with similar memory usage!
VL4 should fly on my machine.
I hope its sill being developed, the forum doesn
-
I wonder if you could get distributed computing working with beowulf... that could be kinda cool... run two of them headless and let them just be "extra processors" for the other one!
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
I wonder if you could get distributed computing working with beowulf... that could be kinda cool... run two of them headless and let them just be "extra processors" for the other one!
...But will it run XQuake? (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Aloone, in another thread:
I have used both Redhat 9 and Vector Linux
So you did try Vector, huh? How's it compare to RH9? (speed, ram)
-
quote:
insomnia: http://www.vectorlinux.com/ (http://www.vectorlinux.com/)
(should be added on the front page) (http://graemlins/tux.gif)
OK. I also added Coyote Linux and Wolverine.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
So you did try Vector, huh? How's it compare to RH9? (speed, ram)
Its a lot faster than RedHat, even without an accelerated graphic driver and all the eye candy turned on its still faster than both Redhat and Windows.
I don't know about memory though, KDE had an easy to use GUI to deturmine the memory useage.
How do I find out how much physical memory Vector Linux is using?
Out of my 256MB (take 32MB used up my my on board graphics card) so that's 224MB, RedHat used used over 60% of my physical memory. 30% for disk buffers, (this would depend on the programs I was running) and the other 30% for it's code, the rest was swaped to disk.
I sure Vector uses far less as it will run on 32MB.
-
If you're not using KDE, that's probably why it's faster.
-
quote:
How do I find out how much physical memory Vector Linux is using?
In a console, run top or procinfo.
-
The command free is more to the point.
-
I just noticed it runs OpenGL and WineX faster than any other disrto I use(might change if you add to much packages).
It's a good distro for gamers.
[ August 09, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
Memory usage under fluxbox while running X-term and X-calc, in the root user area.
Total: 218.46, I have 224MB of system memory, so what's happened to the last 5.54MB?
Used: 97.93MB
Free: 120.54MB
Buffers: 7.91MB
Cached: 60.33MB
The swap partition was completely unused!
X is the biggest resource hog using 8%, the other processes all used less than 2%, 1% was the norm. I added all this up and it came to 15%, these figures are probably rounded up anyway so it's probably far less than 15%.
97.93 - 7.91 - 60.33 = 29.69 = 13.59% of total memory!
This is all very good but why dose Linux allocate large amounts of memory for a Cache?
I wouldn't like to run this on 32MB of memory.
[ August 09, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
I wouldn't like to run this on 32MB of memory.
[ August 09, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
I would(and I did). ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
I would(and I did). ;)
It must allocate memory according to your hardware, I would imadgine if you only had 32MB it would load less and use the swap partition more.
This is very good as, RedHat often used the swap partition causing my PC to slow to a crawl on some occasions, this hasn
-
Linux puts alot of data to cache to improve performance. Whereas Windows often leaves large amounts of memory unused, what Linux does in this situation is different.
Instead of memory that isn't allocated to an application or the kernel being 'free' (read: wasted) Linux uses this for caching data.
Now I don't know all the exact details of how this works, but I believe it improves performance considerably. I think all UNIX systems I/O buffer in this way. You could read the kernel source if you are really interested.
I think that when you open an application that asks for a chunk of memory and there is none free the kernel just flushes some of the cache. This way news apps can still run.
Seriously though, look through mm/ in the kernel source i'm sure it can explain it better than me (http://smile.gif)
-
Cache size is determined by system memory. If you have 32MB in the system, it'll probably used about 8MB for it (at least that's what my 32MB system did). As for the lost 5MB of memory it isn't reporting, I have no clue. It always seems to report a smaller number on all machines.
On this note...is there something that lets me control the size of the caches? Because my system, after a half hour or so, seems to go up to 100MB buffers and 260MB cache, which puts it really close to the top.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
On this note...is there something that lets me control the size of the caches? Because my system, after a half hour or so, seems to go up to 100MB buffers and 260MB cache, which puts it really close to the top.
Why is that a problem?
-
Because if I then launch a new program, it spends time either swapping or dump huge cache sections. I could probably speed up program startup a bit by figuring out a good cache capping point.
-
You actually notcie it swapping?
Can you observe it with free?
You might be able to tweak it a little by changing the bdflush interval.
[ August 11, 2004: Message edited by: Tux ]
-
I leave top running in a separate desktop all the time...I notice it reports 260MB cache, so I switch to another desktop and launch Mozilla...it takes unusually long, and when I go back to top, the cache is down to 150MB or so.
It never swap in huge amounts, mostly just a MB or so at at time, but it seems pointless to do that if it's willing to shrink the cache 100MB or so. (http://redface.gif)
Where can I adjust the bdflush thingy?
-
VL 4.3 was released a few days ago.
I'm downloading it now.
323.8MB is big on a 5k connection that needs to be reconnected every 2 hours (fortunately my download manager will auto reconnect), its going to take more than a day.
How easy is it to do an upgrade installation?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
VL 4.3 was released a few days ago.
I'm downloading it now.
323.8MB is big on a 5k connection that needs to be reconnected every 2 hours (fortunately my download manager will auto reconnect), its going to take more than a day.
How easy is it to do an upgrade installation?
Do notice this is only Release Candidate 1.
Luckily, most buggy parts can already be updated, see: http://vectorlinux.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3191 (http://vectorlinux.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3191)
As for the upgrade, I recommend a fresh install since it's using Linux 2.6 (and do update the few bugs).
(http://graemlins/tux.gif)
-
Bump. Aloone asked:
quote:
Total: 218.46, I have 224MB of system memory, so what's happened to the last 5.54MB?
I figured it out now...that missing bit is being used by the kernel and its modules.