LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Suse/Novell
User Name
Password
Suse/Novell This Forum is for the discussion of Suse Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-20-2004, 05:49 PM   #1
Kachaturian
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Distribution: Suse 9.2
Posts: 11

Rep: Reputation: 0
Thumbs down Linux 9.2 runs very slow on 233MHz PC


Have recently installed Suse Linux 9.2 professional on a 233 MHZ Pentium PC with 4.3 GB HD and 198MB RAM, which was previously running with WIN95. It now runs only with Linux. The installation went well and all the programs run (including all the drives, the internet, etc). However, the computer is now incredibly slow. It takes 8.5 minutes to boot. Starting any program takes very long time. Most surprisingly, even browsing the web is painstakingly slow (I have a cable connection with 100 Mbps and browse with other XP computers quite fast). Is there anything I am doing wrong. Is 233MHz to slow for Linux 9.2?


Kachaturian
 
Old 11-20-2004, 05:55 PM   #2
The_JinJ
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Scotland
Distribution: Suse, OpenWRT
Posts: 299

Rep: Reputation: 30
What desktop are you using? Try installing a lighter desktop that will use less resources.
 
Old 11-20-2004, 11:51 PM   #3
Rob Roye
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Mishawaka, IN
Distribution: SuSE 9.0, 9.1, 9.2
Posts: 38

Rep: Reputation: 15
233 MHz is too slow for 9.2, you might be ok with an earlier version, but 9.2 needs a bit more horsepower to run well. It would be like wanting Windows XP to run well on a dual-3.0 GHz machine with 2 GB of RAM - it just needs more to run fast.

I have 9.1 running on my 500MHz spare box with 512 MB RAM and it runs nicely. The machine I'm on now is an Athlon 2500+ w/ 1GB RAM and it's screaming fast.
 
Old 11-20-2004, 11:59 PM   #4
oily_rags
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 128

Rep: Reputation: 15
Unless you do without a gui entirely and stay in console, a 233 mhz pc will be to underpowered to do anything. Did you actually expect it to be fast? I guarentee xp won't run well or at all on the same machine.
 
Old 11-21-2004, 01:14 AM   #5
sc3252
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: sac, ca
Distribution: mandrake/debian
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 15
yeah that is way underpowered, try slackware its more forgiving.
 
Old 11-21-2004, 01:20 AM   #6
Jwangk
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
mmm, 233MHz is too slow for 9.2
 
Old 11-22-2004, 02:49 PM   #7
Present
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: suse/slack/gentoo/lfs (not-in-that-order)
Posts: 281

Rep: Reputation: 30
you might try slack or yoper (i have yoper running on an old 1.5ghz machine and it screams). but do yourself a favor...

install ONLY what you need!

try manually selecting what to install. for instance, if you want it to be a web surfing station, install a light desktop, networking tools, and a browser. hope this is not over simplified, but it may be tolerable on the 266.

wish i had it here to mess with . might be cheaper to spend $50.00 and get an AMD 1.5ghz/mobo combination and move the rest of your hardware over
 
Old 11-22-2004, 10:16 PM   #8
Kachaturian
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Distribution: Suse 9.2
Posts: 11

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Thanks for all the comments. I am currently running the K desktop Environment KDE 3.3.0. To evaluate the program on a faster machine I will now try installing Suse 9.2 - Dual boot with XP- in my Sony VAIO 2.4 GHz and 1GB RAM. Is the process completely reversible? i.e., after partitioning the HD and formating it for Linux, if I were to decide to return to the current XP-only configuration, would I have any problems?
 
Old 11-23-2004, 03:27 AM   #9
lesnakupa
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Poland
Distribution: openSUSE 11.3
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: 0
I dont know how it is @Xp, but I have a winME and SuSE and i can always
1. move the bootloader (GRUB) to floppy,
2. run windows startdisk
3. fdisk /mbr

... and I have a clean windows boot, still being able to boot linux from floppy...

than i can get the GRUB back to MBR with the help of YaST...

For Xp things are different, but i know a good place with instructions: http://www.novell.com/documentation/...l/ch07s05.html


not bad either i guess... but before that move your GRUB to floppy, IF you want still to be able to boot linux.
 
Old 11-23-2004, 03:34 AM   #10
oily_rags
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 128

Rep: Reputation: 15
To reverse it you would have to format the linux partition and pop in the windows xp cd, and run the command line program and type FIXMBR or FIXPART or something like this. Thats to erase grum or lilo boot loaders and return xp's boot loader. There may be a cleaner more elegant way of reverting back to windows that I'm unaware of, this is the way I did it in the past
 
Old 11-23-2004, 06:45 AM   #11
axemanW
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Distribution: SuSE 9.0, Knoppix, Mandrake 10.0, Redhat 9
Posts: 11

Rep: Reputation: 0
boot from knoppix and delete the linux partitions. (the ones without ntfs file systems).
to do this open a console and type
su root
fdisk
help
instructions are pretty clear as to what commands to use from here.

insert xp cd into comp and reboot
select recover
xp should promt "replace master boot record (MBR)
select ok
reboot in SAFEMODE. to do this go to :
start
run
msconfig
select boot.ini
check box for safemode
click apply and close.
reboot

start
run
type "diskpart.exe" without the quotes.
"list volume" (displays existing volumes)
"select volume 1"(or whatever volume you need to extend)
"extend"
"exit"

note that diskpart will only EXTEND A VOLUME it is not a full partitioner. but it will allow windows to "see" the previously deleted partition.

reboot

go back to msconfig and remove check from safeboot

reboot again
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=325590
for more info on diskpart.exe
this worked for me on my laptop a few weeks ago
 
Old 11-24-2004, 07:34 PM   #12
Present
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: suse/slack/gentoo/lfs (not-in-that-order)
Posts: 281

Rep: Reputation: 30
when you install linux, you might try making a small partition (100mb should be sufficient, i boot several OS's and only use about 25mb) at the beginning or end of your hd for the /boot partition.

then you can use grub as your boot loader regardless of what OS you are using (most distro's identify windows partitions during install, and place an entry in Grub, so you can boot that OS directly from your Grub boot menu.

as you make changes to different OS's, you can continue using grub as your boot loader. note that you may have to reinstall grub after any windows installs. windows thinks it is the only OS that exists ;-) (or wishes it was so) .

good luck

Last edited by Present; 11-24-2004 at 07:36 PM.
 
Old 12-11-2004, 03:32 PM   #13
Kachaturian
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Distribution: Suse 9.2
Posts: 11

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Unhappy Hard Drive Partition problems

I have now tried installing the Suse Linux 9.2 on a PCV-RX860 Sony vaio with 2.4GHz Pentium 4, 1.5GB DDR RAM and 80GB HD (NTFS format) and with Windows XP. It is working partially, and what works runs well and fast. Here is my first problem:
Originally I had a C: (30 GB) and D: (45 GB) windows partitions and in addition I had a USB Storix HD with 27.9 (FAT). (When disconnecting the FAT HD, the installation would hang and not run, when connecting the FAT USB HD, the installation program run successfully). I did not understand why but that did not stop me. The suggested partition for Linux was: Windows C; drive (30 GB) untouched, Windows D: drive partition as follows: 20.1 GB NTFS; 24.1GB Linux Reiser and 1 GB Linux Swap. This was reasonable to me. My current Windows load on D: was 9 GB. Following the instructions, I deactivated the Virtual memory (0 MB allocation), defragmented both the C: and D: partitions, run the Suse installation and accepted the suggested partition (as above).
Presently, within Linux I can access the C: Windows partition and the Linux partition. I cannot access neither the 20.1 NTFS from D: or the 27.9 FAT from the USB HD. When running Windows XP, I can access the C: NTFS partition and the USB FAT HD, but the D: partition is not available. Selecting properties shows that the disk is full. Double clicking on the disks results in a prompt for re-initializing the disk.
Would you please let me know what went wrong and how can I regain access to these?
 
Old 12-12-2004, 09:55 PM   #14
Kachaturian
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Distribution: Suse 9.2
Posts: 11

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
I realize there is a large volume of info in this and other sites regarding the mounting of windows partitions. I have follow them and do not work. I got a message dueing boot up that says ' mount point ntfs does not exist. Is there a way to save the booting file. I would like to share it with whomever would like to help. Also, when mounting the drives manually, using mount -a, I receive the same message for each of the drives: " mount point ntfs does not exist"; "mount point vfat does not exist".
My main concern, off curse, is that I no longer see the D partition in Windows. I did not find anyone else reporting this problem. Is there somethin I should do for windows to recognize the 20.1 GB ntfs that should be still available in D: (originally a 45.2 GB HD)?
 
Old 12-13-2004, 01:20 AM   #15
gd2shoe
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Northern CA
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 835

Rep: Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Kachaturian
I got a message dueing boot up that says ' mount point ntfs does not exist. Is there a way to save the booting file. I would like to share it with whomever would like to help.
...
Also, when mounting the drives manually, using mount -a, I receive the same message for each of the drives: " mount point ntfs does not exist"; "mount point vfat does not exist".
...
I assume you mean the boot log. Yeah, it's still around after you boot. It's located at /var/log/boot.msg . The easiest way to get it for many is to open YaST and go the "Misc" section. You can also look in the system log at /var/log/messages for problems.

I take it that you told YaST to set up the partitions to mount at ntfs and vfat? It sounds as if it never actually made the directories that you are asking it to mount to. Check out your /etc/fstab to double check exactly where the drives are to be mounted. If the directories are missing, you can create them with the "mkdir" command. If you are still having trouble, you may want to post your /etc/fstab file.

The usb is usually treated as a scsi interface. The device is probably called /dev/sda1 (for first partition).


Quote:
Originally posted by Kachaturian
My main concern, off curse, is that I no longer see the D partition in Windows. I did not find anyone else reporting this problem. Is there somethin I should do for windows to recognize the 20.1 GB ntfs that should be still available in D: (originally a 45.2 GB HD)?
Yeah, I'd be concerned too. Microsoft has not released the full NTFS specification, which means that other programmers not using Windows need to guess at how it works. That is why it is generally not recommended to write to an ntfs partition using linux. I have heard of many people having great success in splitting a partition during linux installs. You may have simply been unfortunate.

I'd find a way to run chkdsk for it in Windows. I don't have a high opinion of MS-chkdsk, but they are the ones who know NTFS. You should probably start by going to the control panel-> administrative tools-> computer management-> disk management. See what it has to say about your partition. Does it identify it as healthy? Does it even recognize it as NTFS? If you can right click on the square and hit properties it may let you run chkdsk from there (in tools). Disk management is also where you go to manage drive letters.

If all else fails (I hate to say it), you may wind up formating the partition.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Compare to other linux distro, fedora runs freaking slow..... hkl8324 Fedora 9 07-07-2005 02:44 AM
linux runs slow! pyre Linux - Newbie 10 06-03-2004 10:39 PM
Why GUI runs slow on linux? jitus Linux - Newbie 4 03-18-2004 01:43 PM
Redhat linux runs slow ksathya Linux - Software 3 09-16-2003 01:27 AM
Linux runs real slow all of a sudden trentk Linux - Software 2 06-16-2002 09:21 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration