Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
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.
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have been running Linux for over 1 year now but just remembered that my CPU has Threading built in.....it used to show has 2 cpus under XP. Now that XP is gone from the system, does Linux support Threading and how can I check?
well,
you can type: top
check if processes end with a /0 AND /1 (if this is the case then HT is been using, simulating two cpus)
you can use too: gnome-system-monitor
check tab "Resource Monitor" to check if it graphs one or two CPUs and what percentages each one are using.
yet another way:
cat /proc/cpuinfo
there should be a processor :0 and a processor :1
There should exist another hundred ways.
And as it seems from some posts, using smp kernels+HT are not a garanty for a better performance, some people get better benchmarks with a simple 686 kernel. Someone suggest (were?...) That you can only got better performance (or beenchmarks of that) with HT if you had a regular heavy load on your computer. Desktops are not the case. Usually in fact it's very hard to note the differences (between no HT, HT/single 686, HT/smp) with simple use and perception... things are fast this days and a benchmarks software is only the good way to distingue among very little differences.
thank you for your reply, according to top only one CPU is listed same with "cat /proc/cpuinfo"
I thought mandrake loaded the HT kernel when ever the hardware was detected......
i assumed that you have installed a kernel with smp support. You can compile one with smp support or download a (mandrake) version with that on it, e.g: ftp://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.mandra...-1mdk.i586.rpm
is the default SMP kernel of the MDK 10.1 (that link is for the french mirror and is a rpm of 17Mb.)
Of course, if you try to install it, DON'T, just *DON'T* use the rpm -U kernel-bla.bla.rpm but do rpm -i kernel.....rpm (sorry, if is the case of you been tired of know that, but if you don't, you could end with a Linux with a non-working kernel)
Keep a critical observation of your system, and post your opinions, if you don't mind...
I've been using HT for a week and got mixed results. Using a windows version of Mathematica with wine is much more quick and compile a kernel takes less time (not a huge reduction just a little less). But launching something simpler as firefox or thunderbird seems very obviouslly slower then the normal 686 kernel.
(I browse the web and check mail more times then compile kernels or do my math... so i will probabilly go back to no-smp.
(one basic rule of universe, "there is no free lunch". If you put two 3GHz CPUs you eventually gain twice speed, consume twice energy and got twice heat... or more or less for the intensive properties. Using one cpu simulating two, you don't waste so much energy and don't get so warm, but it's just a publicity myth expecting anything slightly close to twice the performance, i guess...)
thank you for all your help,
Ruip,
I will be trying it tonight but before I do, is there a way to restore to the original kernel (2.6.3-4mdk) if I find a drop in performance?
Thats another reason I insist on rpm -i. This will install (not upgrade!) a new kernel side-by-syde with your original kernel (plus any other you might want to install) It will add too an entry to your boot loader, grub. So after install, just reboot and choose from the menu wich one do you want for your session
If smp gives you any problem from slow performance to a panic (non-working) kernel, just choose the other entry from menu, the last good working.
BTW, If you are a newbie don't wory, this is a easy and pinless install, and 99,999% safe!
Ah, i almost forget. You say you have a 2.6.3 kernel. Thats old! 2.6 at its first steps was not exactly the most mature ones. You sould install a 2.6.8-686 besides the 2.6.8-smp (or even a 2.6.9 if Mandrake has one!) to use instead of your 2.6.3. Theres was a lot of dead bugs from the older ones to these!
when I tried to install (kernel-smp-2.6.8.1.12mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm)
I got this message
Quote:
bootloader-utils >= 1.9 is needed by kernel-smp-2.6.8.1.12mdk-1-1mdk
so I downloaded bootloader-utils-1.9-1.1.101mdk.i586.rpm and got this message
Quote:
drakxtools-backend >= 10-52mdk is needed by bootloader-utils-1.9-1.1.101mdk
so I downloaded drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk.i586.rpm
and got this message
Quote:
error: Failed dependencies:
drakxtools-newt = 10.1-27.2.101mdk is needed by drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
perl-Gtk2 >= 1.040-1mdk is needed by drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
perl-Glib >= 1.040-1mdk is needed by drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
perl-MDK-Common >= 1.1.18-1mdk is needed by drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
perl(Gtk2::TrayIcon) is needed by drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
drakconf < 10.1-0.6mdk conflicts with drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
bootloader-utils < 1.8-4mdk conflicts with drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
bootsplash < 2.1.7-1mdk conflicts with drakxtools-10.1-27.2.101mdk
Ok, sorry, my mistake again.
It's been a long time since i've been using apt/synaptic that i forget THAT kind of problems.
I neglet that with a kernel 2.6.3 you must been using a Mandrake 10 or a 9.2...
I point you to the latest 10.1, so you fall into dependencies hell. Sorry.
There isn't a Apt/Synaptic for Mandrake (or I think itsn't).
You have two/three options
1) - Go to the site: ftp://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.mandra...inux/official/ and click the version of your Mandrake and search for the latest -smp kernel. You can simple use the link i post, changing the part of the path .../10.1/... for your MDK version and deleting the name of the kernel.
2) - Or, try to use Mandrake tool for installing. Sorry i don't remember the name, is somewhere on 'config my computer', inside (confuse) mandrake menus. (is draketool or drakeconf or something like that. Type, drake on a terminal and press tab to see what you've got...)
3) - Or, get a kernel source from Mandrake site or kernel.org site, read the how-to and compile a kernel. It's simple but for a first time I'll suggest you try one of the first 2 ways... or both!
(3,5) - get a decent distro where "apt-get install kernel-..." works!... Just kiding... ah kinda...)
... Or, you can continue download the missing rpm dependencies and update slowly your system. Eventually it will work. Don't forget, use rpm -iv for kernels and rpm -Uv for any other package. (But DrakeInstall or what ever is name will do that automatic for you)
I'll do some homework for you:
here is the version for MDK 10.0. That should work for you without great work or dependencies failures. Is a 2.6.3.7 kernel-smp:
No matter this work or not, try to update your system with the drake tool, specially the kernel to at least a 2.6.8.
(It was suppose to exist an icon on your panels with updates available. Clic on that should make the thing appears and performe an update!... (by tradition mandrake use to stay by the "suppose to do" and the tools don't work, but seems that it geting better, so why not trying?)
Originally posted by Veteq
thank you for all your help
you're wellcome
Quote:
it's working.
good. I'm glad to ear it.
Quote:
I will keep you posted on the performance....
If you don't mind, please keep in touch.
I'm looking for opinions on that... seems that i can't find anyone who is happy with HT. I will start in the next days my system alternate from HT and non-HT, trying to clear if it's an impression or my system is really slower. I must confess i'm hate benchmark software (and i'm lazy !)
If you got any interest on the matter check this post too: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...yper+threading
Quote:
PS: "rui", are you Portuguese?
Well, yes. From Lisboa (Lisbon). BTW, sorry for my terrific english... i'm trying to improve but foreign languages always make my life hard .
Any particularly reason you ask?
I was born in Lisbon, (maternidade Alfredo daCosta)
lived in Queluz until the age of 18.....your english is great...thanks for all your help.
I will have to work on it some more, the CPU file is showing 2 cpus but top and "resource monitor" only show one......
olá vizinho, eu vivi 5 anos em Queluz, de 1995 a 1999!
Maybe we cross to each other on the street in the past....
You don't live in Portugal any more... or I get that part wrong?
Don't worry about top. It just show you reallity. There is only one processor at your motherboard, after all. In front of each process you must have a /0 or /1, identify wich simulate cpu are hold it.
I compile a 2.6.9 kernel (source code from Ubuntu Hoary repository compiled at Ubuntu warty) and it seems to go nice, in terms of speed and starting of applications. It has a specific option, inside smp option for HT. I presume it's new. 2.6.9 is, maybe, more adapted to HT?? I have no ideia. I'm still compile (it as been 4 times at least), trying to get the exact behavier. I must confess i never notice any improvement with compiled kernels before with processors like 2.6G and 3.2G that I use, only that mine are smallers then the ones pre-compiled... (I leave out what i don't need!)
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.