Linux - Server This forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context.
Notices
Welcome to
LinuxQuestions.org , a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free.
Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please
contact us . If you need to reset your password,
click here .
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
07-31-2007, 09:17 PM
#1
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Fedora Core 4
Posts: 4
Rep:
High CPU usage with vino server 2.10.0-4.1 in FC4
Hi. I use vino server that came with Fedora Core 4 as a means of remotely connecting to a file server for administration. Currently vino server has my CPU at a constant 100%, even when no remote users are connected. I've searched google for the problem and have found others that are having the same issue but I haven't found a solution. Does anyone know why this is happening and what I can do to fix things? Any help will be greatly appreciated
08-01-2007, 03:32 PM
#2
Senior Member
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Distribution: Ubuntu, Debian, Android, LFS
Posts: 1,150
do you have direct rendering on?
Code:
glxinfo | grep "direct rendering"
maybe just post your results from
08-01-2007, 08:40 PM
#3
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Fedora Core 4
Posts: 4
Original Poster
Rep:
Here is my output from glxinfo:
Code:
[root@server1 ~]# glxinfo
name of display: :0.0
display: :0 screen: 0
direct rendering: Yes
server glx vendor string: SGI
server glx version string: 1.2
server glx extensions:
GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating,
GLX_EXT_import_context, GLX_OML_swap_method, GLX_SGI_make_current_read,
GLX_SGIS_multisample, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig
client glx vendor string: SGI
client glx version string: 1.4
client glx extensions:
GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_import_context,
GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_MESA_allocate_memory,
GLX_MESA_swap_control, GLX_MESA_swap_frame_usage, GLX_OML_swap_method,
GLX_OML_sync_control, GLX_SGI_make_current_read, GLX_SGI_swap_control,
GLX_SGI_video_sync, GLX_SGIS_multisample, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig,
GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGIX_visual_select_group
GLX extensions:
GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_import_context,
GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_MESA_allocate_memory,
GLX_OML_swap_method, GLX_SGI_make_current_read, GLX_SGIS_multisample,
GLX_SGIX_fbconfig
OpenGL vendor string: Tungsten Graphics, Inc
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) 845G 20040919 x86/MMX/SSE2
OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 6.2.1
OpenGL extensions:
GL_ARB_imaging, GL_ARB_multisample, GL_ARB_multitexture,
GL_ARB_point_parameters, GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp,
GL_ARB_texture_compression, GL_ARB_texture_cube_map,
GL_ARB_texture_env_add, GL_ARB_texture_env_combine,
GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar, GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3,
GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat, GL_ARB_texture_rectangle,
GL_ARB_transpose_matrix, GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object,
GL_ARB_vertex_program, GL_ARB_window_pos, GL_EXT_abgr, GL_EXT_bgra,
GL_EXT_blend_color, GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate,
GL_EXT_blend_func_separate, GL_EXT_blend_minmax, GL_EXT_blend_subtract,
GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint, GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array, GL_EXT_convolution,
GL_EXT_copy_texture, GL_EXT_draw_range_elements, GL_EXT_fog_coord,
GL_EXT_histogram, GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays, GL_EXT_packed_pixels,
GL_EXT_point_parameters, GL_EXT_polygon_offset, GL_EXT_rescale_normal,
GL_EXT_secondary_color, GL_EXT_separate_specular_color,
GL_EXT_stencil_wrap, GL_EXT_subtexture, GL_EXT_texture, GL_EXT_texture3D,
GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp, GL_EXT_texture_env_add,
GL_EXT_texture_env_combine, GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3,
GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic, GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias,
GL_EXT_texture_object, GL_EXT_texture_rectangle, GL_EXT_vertex_array,
GL_3DFX_texture_compression_FXT1, GL_APPLE_client_storage,
GL_APPLE_packed_pixels, GL_ATI_blend_equation_separate,
GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip, GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat,
GL_INGR_blend_func_separate, GL_MESA_pack_invert, GL_MESA_ycbcr_texture,
GL_MESA_window_pos, GL_NV_blend_square, GL_NV_light_max_exponent,
GL_NV_texture_rectangle, GL_NV_texgen_reflection, GL_NV_vertex_program,
GL_NV_vertex_program1_1, GL_SGI_color_matrix, GL_SGI_color_table,
GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap, GL_SGIS_texture_border_clamp,
GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp, GL_SGIS_texture_lod, GL_SUN_multi_draw_arrays
glu version: 1.3
glu extensions:
GLU_EXT_nurbs_tessellator, GLU_EXT_object_space_tess
visual x bf lv rg d st colorbuffer ax dp st accumbuffer ms cav
id dep cl sp sz l ci b ro r g b a bf th cl r g b a ns b eat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0x22 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
0x23 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
0x24 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 0 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
0x25 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 0 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
0x26 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Slow
0x27 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Slow
0x28 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 0 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Slow
0x29 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 0 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Slow
Should I still go ahead and turn on direct rendering? I guess my first question rather should be what is direct rendering?
08-01-2007, 08:54 PM
#4
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Fedora Core 4
Posts: 4
Original Poster
Rep:
I'd also like to know if the high cpu usage will effect the performance of my file server. Here is the output from uptime:
Code:
[root@server1 ~]# uptime
21:49:45 up 4 days, 5:12, 2 users, load average: 1.55, 1.22, 1.13
Is that load average a bad one? The highest I've seen is 1.77. The server is running on a 1.4 GHz Celeron. Again, help is greatly appreciated
08-01-2007, 10:06 PM
#5
LQ Veteran
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 10,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flurd
I'd also like to know if the high cpu usage will effect the performance of my file server.
Running 100% (doing nothing) can't be good - whether it affects [any|every]thing else will probably mainly depend on relative dispatch priority.
Quote:
Is that load average a bad one? The highest I've seen is 1.77.
Running 100% you won't see it drop below 1 - if it interferes with responding to I/O interrupts, you'll see it climb; especially on a file server. Along with your IOWait numbers.
Personally I'd be looking to another remote desktop product.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26 AM .
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know .
Latest Threads
LQ News