Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon 21 Apr 2014, 00:47
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
Precise Puppy RC2, October 20, 2012
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 46 of 59 [875 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, ..., 57, 58, 59 Next
Author Message
peebee


Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 1273
Location: Malvern, Worcs, UK

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 16:01    Post subject: Re: Pnethood?  

rcrsn51 wrote:
peebee wrote:
Has anybody else tried pnethood on Precise Beta 6 or 7?? It is very very slow to scan and connect compared with other recent puppies.

I can confirm that. I don't know what has changed in Pnethood, but you might want to look at YASSM. It's much faster.


Hi rcrsn51

Thanks for the suggestion but as we are trying to beta test what is being shipped in Precise I think it is better to try and work out why pnethood performs so poorly in this puppy. (or if we can't then we need to persuade Barry to ship with something better that performs adequately...)

In this spirit I have regressed pnethood on Precise 5.3.95 back through 3 versions - 0.6.9 then 0.6.8.9 and then 0.6.8.1

The very poor performance is evident in all versions - and there are no errors to suggest why either in the pnethood log or on the console if pnethood is run from there.

So I don't think it is a pnethood problem - it is some sort of interaction between pnethood and the underlying networking infrastructure of Precise. (there was something similar but not so marked with lupu which suggests it is something in ubuntu).

If anybody can think of a test I can do or some evidence I can generate to help track down the problem please let me know.

Cheers
peebee

_________________
LxPup-14.03 = Puppy + LXDE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rcrsn51


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 8558
Location: Stratford, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 16:34    Post subject: Re: Pnethood?  

peebee wrote:
If anybody can think of a test I can do or some evidence I can generate to help track down the problem please let me know.

I took the version of nbtscan out of Quirky and dropped it into Precise 5395. Pnethood immediately got faster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
peebee


Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 1273
Location: Malvern, Worcs, UK

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 17:44    Post subject: Re: Pnethood?  

rcrsn51 wrote:
peebee wrote:
If anybody can think of a test I can do or some evidence I can generate to help track down the problem please let me know.

I took the version of nbtscan out of Quirky and dropped it into Precise 5395. Pnethood immediately got faster.


Great deduction Wink

I did the same with the version out of Wary 5.3 and it also did the trick.

Looks like the 2009 version of nbtscan is needed - the 2012 version as in Precise and Slacko gives the abysmal scan performance.

But Slacko pnethood with the 2012 nbtscan works just fine.......

Cheers
peebee

_________________
LxPup-14.03 = Puppy + LXDE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rcrsn51


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 8558
Location: Stratford, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 18:07    Post subject: Re: Pnethood?  

peebee wrote:
Looks like the 2009 version of nbtscan is needed - the 2012 version as in Precise and Slacko gives the abysmal scan performance.

When jamesbond and I were developing Samba client apps for Fatdog, we found numerous cases where nbtscan was ineffective. That's why YASSM is now using mpscan as its scanning engine. It's a much more robust tool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 5446
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 22:10    Post subject:  

More Nvidia testing.......

5.3.95 live pfix=ram on another old Puppy box.Display,sound and internet all working and correct on initial boot.

# report-video
Report Video 1.3 - Sun 23 Sep 2012 on Precise Puppy 5.3.95 - Linux 3.2.29 i686

Chip description:
0.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation NV5 [RIVA TNT2/TNT2 Pro] (rev 15)
oem: NVidia
product: Riva TNT Chip Rev B1

X Server: Xorg Driver used: nouveau

X.Org version: 1.11.3
dimensions: 1024x768 pixels (270x203 millimeters)
depth of root window: 16 planes


...the above also recorded in /tmp/root/ as report-video,
and archived with xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log as report-video-full.gz
# glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
1027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 205.387 FPS
1131 frames in 5.0 seconds = 226.153 FPS
990 frames in 5.0 seconds = 197.838 FPS
990 frames in 5.0 seconds = 197.927 FPS
1105 frames in 5.0 seconds = 220.972 FPS

-Computer-
Processor : AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
Memory : 254MB (145MB used)
Operating System : Unknown distribution
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Sun 23 Sep 2012 09:09:09 PM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Mesa DRI nv05 x86/MMX+/3DNow!+
X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
-Multimedia-
Audio Adapter : VIA686A - VIA 82C686A/B rev20

-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
Version : 1.11.3
-Monitors-
Monitor 0 : 1024x768 pixels
-OpenGL-
Vendor : Nouveau
Renderer : Mesa DRI nv05 x86/MMX+/3DNow!+
Version : 1.2 Mesa 8.0.2
Direct Rendering : Yes

-Processor-
Name : AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
Family, model, stepping : 6, 4, 2 (AMD Athlon (Thunderbird))
Vendor : AuthenticAMD
-Configuration-
Cache Size : 256kb
Frequency : 851.53MHz
BogoMIPS : 1703.01
Byte Order : Little Endian


# free
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 254424 246296 8128 0 22172
-/+ buffers: 224124 30300
Swap: 1076316 1624 1074692
#
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 5446
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 22:25    Post subject:  

Same box...... 5.3.95.1 live pfix=ram.Too big to load into ram though.Sound,internet and display all working on initial boot. Display is offset slightly to the right......easily fixed.

# report-video
Report Video 1.3 - Sun 23 Sep 2012 on Precise Puppy 5.3.95.1 - Linux 3.2.30-nopae i686

Chip description:
0.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation NV5 [RIVA TNT2/TNT2 Pro] (rev 15)
oem: NVidia
product: Riva TNT Chip Rev B1

X Server: Xorg Driver used: nv

X.Org version: 1.11.3
dimensions: 1024x768 pixels (321x241 millimeters)
depth of root window: 16 planes


...the above also recorded in /tmp/root/ as report-video,
and archived with xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log as report-video-full.gz
# glxgears
48 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9.579 FPS
47 frames in 5.1 seconds = 9.247 FPS
42 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8.399 FPS
49 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9.714 FPS
49 frames in 5.1 seconds = 9.566 FPS
50 frames in 5.1 seconds = 9.879 FPS

-Computer-
Processor : AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
Memory : 254MB (123MB used)
Operating System : Unknown distribution
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Sun 23 Sep 2012 09:28:31 PM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Gallium 0.4 on softpipe
X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
-Multimedia-
Audio Adapter : VIA686A - VIA 82C686A/B rev20

# free
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 254460 237960 16500 0 27528
-/+ buffers: 210432 44028
Swap: 1076316 724 1075592
#
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 5446
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 22:54    Post subject:  

Pae kernel compared to non-pae..... Smile All measurements done running live pfix=ram with SeaMonkey open to this forum.

-Computer-
Processor : AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
Memory : 254MB

5.3.95 pae version

Code:
Memory    : 254MB (145MB used)

Mem: 254424 246296 8128 0 22172
-/+ buffers: 224124 30300
Swap: 1076316 1624 1074692


5.3.95.1 non-pae version

Code:
Memory    : 254MB (123MB used)

Mem: 254460 237960 16500 0 27528
-/+ buffers: 210432 44028
Swap: 1076316 724 1075592



Computer-
Processor : 2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
Memory : 903MB

5.3.95 pae

Code:
Memory    : 903MB (196MB used)


5.3.95.1 non-pae

Code:
Memory    : 903MB (188MB used)


-Computer-
Processor : 4x AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 620 Processor
Memory : 3884MB

5.3.95 pae

Code:
Memory    : 3884MB (200MB used)


5.3.95.1 non-pae

Code:
Memory    : 2854MB (199MB used)


Quote:
PAE now has over 1 year of tests in Puppyland distros. It has been demonstrating since its introduction by JamesBond that there is no negative impact in its use......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 5446
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Sun 23 Sep 2012, 23:55    Post subject:  

One final Nvidia test for the night....... I needed to drag some of these boxes off the shelf anyway. Smile

5.3.95 live pfix=ram. Sound,internet and display all working and correct on initial boot.

# report-video
Report Video 1.3 - Sun 23 Sep 2012 on Precise Puppy 5.3.95 - Linux 3.2.29 i686

Chip description:
0.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation NV44A [GeForce 6200] (rev a1)
oem: NVIDIA
product: nv44 Board - p382h1 Chip Rev

X Server: Xorg Driver used: nouveau

X.Org version: 1.11.3
dimensions: 1024x768 pixels (270x203 millimeters)
depth of root window: 16 planes


...the above also recorded in /tmp/root/ as report-video,
and archived with xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log as report-video-full.gz
# glxgears
nvfx_screen_get_param:95 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 30
nvfx_screen_get_param:95 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 30
nvfx_screen_get_param:95 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 55
nvfx_screen_get_param:95 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 56
nvfx_screen_get_param:95 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 59
nvfx_screen_get_param:95 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 58
nvfx_screen_get_param:95 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 30
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
glxgears: nvfx_state_fb.c:124: nvfx_framebuffer_validate: Assertion `util_format_get_stride(fb->zsbuf->format, fb->width) <= nvfx->hw_zeta.pitch' failed.

-Computer-
Processor : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.00GHz
Memory : 1554MB (203MB used)
Operating System : Unknown distribution
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Sun 23 Sep 2012 10:53:41 PM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Gallium 0.4 on NV4A
X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
-Multimedia-
Audio Adapter : ICH - Intel 82801BA-ICH2
Audio Adapter : MPU-401 UART - MPU-401 UART

-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
Version : 1.11.3
-Monitors-
Monitor 0 : 1024x768 pixels
-OpenGL-
Vendor : nouveau
Renderer : Gallium 0.4 on NV4A
Version : 2.1 Mesa 8.0.2
Direct Rendering : Yes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 5446
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Mon 24 Sep 2012, 00:04    Post subject:  

5.3.95.1 live pfix=ram..... same box. booted to incorrect resolution.

-Computer-
Processor : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.00GHz
Memory : 1554MB (188MB used)
Operating System : Unknown distribution
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Sun 23 Sep 2012 11:02:42 PM GMT-8
-Display-
Resolution : 1280x1024 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Gallium 0.4 on softpipe
X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation

Let's see if I can change it..... Laughing

A few moments later......

Attempted to change resolution through First Run...... failed.Exited to prompt and successfully used Xorgwizard to achieve the desired 1024x768 resolution.Sound and internet good on boot.

Report Video 1.3 - Sun 23 Sep 2012 on Precise Puppy 5.3.95.1 - Linux 3.2.30-nopae i686

Chip description:
0.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation NV44A [GeForce 6200] (rev a1)
oem: NVIDIA
product: nv44 Board - p382h1 Chip Rev

X Server: Xorg Driver used: nv

X.Org version: 1.11.3
dimensions: 1024x768 pixels (321x241 millimeters)
depth of root window: 24 planes


...the above also recorded in /tmp/root/ as report-video,
and archived with xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log as report-video-full.gz
# glxgears
117 frames in 5.0 seconds = 23.275 FPS
122 frames in 5.0 seconds = 24.345 FPS
120 frames in 5.0 seconds = 23.956 FPS
126 frames in 5.1 seconds = 24.925 FPS
121 frames in 5.0 seconds = 24.089 FPS
114 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22.772 FPS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sage

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 4767
Location: GB

PostPosted: Mon 24 Sep 2012, 03:17    Post subject:  

Thanks for confirming 2Barks is switched OFF, Ray. Not sure why BK does this during his coding? Maybe it irritates him. Personally, during extensive testing, I find it massively helpful and reassuring. Must be an easy way to switch it on again, but this may need an extra line of text in the start-up storyboard?

Quote:
I use a very old Sony Vaio P3 500 MHz 256 MB RAM notebook.

Probably not the best vehicle for testing - or owning: Vaio have a bad reputation on several counts eg unreliable, overheating, non-upgradeability, etc. Previously, I have advised strongly against laptops of any vintage and specification and not just on the grounds of the issues you now experience. They were/are a market scam.

Notwithstanding, recent releases of Puppy have become larger, more resource hungry and much much slower. All this, BK under huge pressure from the small but vocal over-endowed minority of a few nations, including my own, who are determined to suck up the unnecessary hardware proffered by the industry. This project began by offering remarkable performance on established ('old' is pejorative) reliable kit, providing most of the daily requirements of users. Landfill is the watchword. Let's not allow Wintel the last laugh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mrokosz

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Mon 24 Sep 2012, 04:16    Post subject:  

Sage,
What's Your point. I own my laptop for 12 years, and I like it. I have several computers, laptops and desktop, tablets. My Vaio works without any problems all the time. It is slightly worm, definitely not overheating. Computers with more RAM, faster processors can run any linux distro and there is no reason to deal with GUI limitations. My Sony has really beautiful 12" mat display, it's lightweight and I like to use it. On my netbook, HP 210 mini I have installed Ubuntu 12.04 and also I did not notice any problem with this distro, except it won't run on my old hardware. On the other hand Lubuntu 12.04 with some modifications, like latest 3.6 kernel, some apps installed from ppa, and using flash player modified by mint distro to make it work run the best. I have tried several distros for computers with limited resources and I wrote what's my impessions from using them. I do not force anybody to use a specific distro, but it seems that Lubuntu team made a very good job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sage

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 4767
Location: GB

PostPosted: Mon 24 Sep 2012, 06:25    Post subject:  

Quote:
What's Your point

Lucky you! I am very happy you are happy with your machine. Unfortunately, my experience of friends and acquaintances suggests you may in the minority. I get endless requests of which the two most frequent are for memory upgrades, which may either be impossible due to matching, availability, or slot-deficiency and cost. The other requests are of the 'fix-it, please' variety. Without the proprietary manuals and jigs, often the tabs break when opening the lids. Many have smashed screens due to owner/colleague carelessness with repair being uneconomic. Parts availability and pricing depend on the vagaries of eBay entries and the wind direction (I jest). The need to use stiff hinges tends to be a ticking time bomb; there are a few ultra-cautious owners, of course. Sometimes, owners are so fed up they offer me their dying machines gratis - I decline.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mrokosz

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Mon 24 Sep 2012, 08:08    Post subject:  

Sage,
I don't think any computer several years old is worthed to fix, usually You can get chiper used one, or replace with a current version that's on the market. But as long as it works is fine. I just get used to it. RAM is max out at 256MB. Like in any computer that old it is impossible to add it more, so what I just have to live with it. You can throw it to the garbage or use it. I decide to use it as long as it works, did not notice any problems. Even the latest kernel recognize this unit. I can not run several apps at the same time except playing music with deadbeef, and searching interenet, can still watch video on it, with mplayer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sage

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 4767
Location: GB

PostPosted: Mon 24 Sep 2012, 08:18    Post subject:  

Quote:
You can throw it to the garbage

Naughty!
Yes, until recently we discovered that 196Mb was sufficient to run all Puppies except Saluki. Now 256Mb is struggling. BK daily confronts the problems of burgeoning library file sizes; some developers just don't care, some are less than competent (allegedly), others are brow-beaten by the selfish go-faster striped kiddies.
What to do?!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
artsown

Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon 24 Sep 2012, 09:00    Post subject:  

Wireless still not working with either version of B7. Test PC is a Dell 2350
having a p4 1.8 ghz cpu and 768 meg ram. Wireless adapter is Linksys
Wireless-G PCI WMP54G

Once after good connect and web surf I exited and did the .2fs Save file.
But after reboot, no connection. Sometimes get the empty (black) desktop
as well.

Art
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 46 of 59 [875 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, ..., 57, 58, 59 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1231s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0273s) ][ GZIP on ]