UbuntuThis forum is for the discussion of Ubuntu 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.
You'll find different results with HDtune, and probably the other disc benchmarkign software as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatPerson
One note though, Unity currently is very quick, and I tried OpenBox on here, and it didn't really seem to be much faster at loading applications, so I do not really see what the point of putting a lighter desktop environment on, except to stop the Gnome processes at boot.
I've been confused before about what you want, sometimes its 'faster boot', sometimes its 'OS which generally performs well'. If you just installed openbox it would only make a real difference to login manager-> desktop times, not loading times. If oyou'ev got enough CPU/graphics power, there might not be any noticable difference between unity and openbox, once loaded.
Its not just the gnome processes and packages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatPerson
I have decided to install Xubuntu onto a USB stick which has more or less the same characteristics as the SSD inside (Same size, read/write speeds, etc) on a trial basis to time, optimize and see if it gets 10 seconds, if so I will install it.
Why xubunt-desktop, not minimal install + Xfce4?
Even if your USB flash drive has got similar performance to the internal SSD, its going to be slower. USB uses far more CPU than a HDD/SDD, and you've CPU use is already maxed out for a lot of the boot process.
BTW, there are a few hints as to how to improve boot speed here-
Quite a development. Turns out that my optimisation on Ubuntu 11.04 has actually made it FASTER at booting than a freshly installed system. Speeds below:
3.4Ghz Dual Core 1.5GB RAM running Xubuntu from power button to log in screen: 30 seconds~
1.6GHz Hyperthreading 2GB RAM running optimised Ubuntu from power button to login screen: 23 seconds~
Then from login to desktop:
3.4GHz Dual Core 1.5GB RAM running Xubuntu from log in screen to desktop: 20 seconds (At 10 it has a large white bar with most icons loaded, but it only loads how it should look after 20.)
1.6GHz Hyperthreading 2GB RAM running optimised Ubuntu from login to desktop: 14 seconds (Displays nothing until the end of it loading)
You'll find different results with HDtune, and probably the other disc benchmarkign software as well.
I've been confused before about what you want, sometimes its 'faster boot', sometimes its 'OS which generally performs well'. If you just installed openbox it would only make a real difference to login manager-> desktop times, not loading times. If oyou'ev got enough CPU/graphics power, there might not be any noticable difference between unity and openbox, once loaded.
Its not just the gnome processes and packages.
It is a faster boot which I am trying to get, but installing Openbox did not speed up the boot because it already had the other desktop environment., and I would have to get rid of all of the packages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
Why xubunt-desktop, not minimal install + Xfce4?
I chose xubuntu-desktop as I already had a Xubuntu install CD, and I could not find a minimal disk. Did you mean something like ubuntu-core or ubuntu-server?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
Even if your USB flash drive has got similar performance to the internal SSD, its going to be slower. USB uses far more CPU than a HDD/SDD, and you've CPU use is already maxed out for a lot of the boot process.
I took this into consideration and put it on the hard disk to test it. I would test it on my netbook but I only have 20GB of disk space, even though the desktop has over double the processing power so it should have been faster, yet it was still slower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
BTW, there are a few hints as to how to improve boot speed here-
I know it is comparing a faster PC to a slower netbook, but that should push the point more. If Ubuntu on a slower computer boots faster than Xubuntu on a faster PC, that should signal that Ubuntu with my optimisations is faster.
I chose xubuntu-desktop as I already had a Xubuntu install CD, and I could not find a minimal disk. Did you mean something like ubuntu-core or ubuntu-server?
I was actually thinking of the 'alternate install' disc.
Pity that the only guide I can find for how to get Xfce4 installed on top of the alternate install CD is outdated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatPerson
I took this into consideration and put it on the hard disk to test it. I would test it on my netbook but I only have 20GB of disk space, even though the desktop has over double the processing power so it should have been faster, yet it was still slower.
I know it is comparing a faster PC to a slower netbook, but that should push the point more. If Ubuntu on a slower computer boots faster than Xubuntu on a faster PC, that should signal that Ubuntu with my optimisations is faster.
3.4GHz dual core... if thats not new, then its a Pentium D (aka '2 P4 cores stuck together on one CPU').
The Pentium Ds have the same problems that the P4s have- long pipeline, and very slow for the MHz rating. The Pentium D probably would be 'faster' for long complicated calculations, but the atom would be faster to react, and be faster for smaller, lighter tasks (like loading an OS).
You cant just compare CPUs on GHz alone. Even if you could, the whole system needs to be taken into account- the old P4 could have a slower HDD and HDD system, slower memory, etc..
You cant just compare CPUs on GHz alone. Even if you could, the whole system needs to be taken into account- the old P4 could have a slower HDD and HDD system, slower memory, etc..
Ah, ok. I tried installing Xubuntu on a small partition on the netbook (5GB, I stole some space from /home and /usr) and tried again. This time it beat it at logging in, but Ubuntu still won by 4 seconds on the boot. Oh, and it is the Pentium D. Well done at guessing it.
Distribution: Debian Testing, Stable, Sid and Manjaro, Mageia 3, LMDE
Posts: 2,628
Rep:
If you want the minimal install you need the netboot image. It will give you just enough OS to boot to. Text login and cli install what you want on from there.
If you want the minimal install you need the netboot image. It will give you just enough OS to boot to. Text login and cli install what you want on from there.
Distribution: Debian Testing, Stable, Sid and Manjaro, Mageia 3, LMDE
Posts: 2,628
Rep:
As I do not use a touch pad, I have no idea what touch screen things are.
The minimal install gives you the kernel and the dpkg tools and networking (wired). Everything else is up to you. Don't, for instance forget your xserver packages.
As I do not use a touch pad, I have no idea what touch screen things are.
The minimal install gives you the kernel and the dpkg tools and networking (wired). Everything else is up to you. Don't, for instance forget your xserver packages.
Ah, thanks. I think for now I will stick with how it is, I know that way would be faster but I am rather new to linux and as I use my netbook a lot I would not want to mess it up.
I'd try to fix networking after hibernation. You can run any script after hibernation if that's what it takes to make it work.
ureadahead can be disabled, maybe e4rat makes it faster.
Okay, I am going to try and fix it. Slightly later on today (I am going somewhere in 12 minutes) I will try e4rat and see if it is faster than ureadahead.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.