It's very possible that that's the case, pine, that is, but it's NOT only
pine which is slow. It is pretty much all operations, in X. This was NOT
the case before however. The only real difference right now, is the advent
of XFS. I did a full backup of my system, before reinstalling, and now
things are slower. I've tried some things here on the list, biosize,
logbuff, etc. I've DEFINITELY gained a noticable amount of speed. I need
to tweak something else now. My DMA settings are not an issue, I've got
everything turned up as high as my hardware allows. Not to mention, if
this was a scsi system, hdparm won't to crap for me. I'm experimenting
with this FS on my desktop to see if it's alright for oracle to run on.
That may give us some performance increase there, also, I'm trying to
tweak it so I know what to do in the event of a performance issue.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 8 May 2001, GCS wrote:
> Hi Austin,
>
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 05:11:00PM -0500, Austin Gonyou wrote:
>
> > While stable, it doesn't do
> > me any good if I have to wait 5 mins for PINE to open when it's only
> > moving a few messages from inbox to other boxes. The same operation would
> > take 30 seconds with ReiserFS.
> Personaly I do not think it is a problem with XFS. First, please check
> your drive with "hdparm -t /dev/hda" (I suppose it is hda in your
> machine). Maybe you compiled your kernel without proper DMA support on
> the IDE bus or just does not set it up with hdparm. For me ReiserFS and
> XFS gives the same performance more or less.
> (In brackets: pine is slooow, and has more holes than a cheese has.
> Change to mutt, it performs mailbox operations much more faster, etc).
>
> Regards, Laszlo
>
|