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 Wed 05 Aug 2015, 04:51
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
Why does Carolite-1.2 run so slowly?
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 4 [47 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
Mike7


Joined: 18 Feb 2013
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jul 2015, 19:44    Post subject:  Why does Carolite-1.2 run so slowly?  

These questions were partially posted to the thread "puppy boot options", but there have been no replies there so I'm re-posting them here in a new thread.

I've read all the wikkas concerning boot and kernel parameters, but I still have questions about my installation of Carolite-1.2, which at the moment is the main OS on my Eeepc.

I used Rhadon's install for Carolite-1-2 (copy files from iso then use grub4dosconfig), which worked. Carolite boots and runs, but it runs slowly. Too slowly.

Here's my current menu.lst file (I added the copy command to the original pfix=fsck):

Code:
# more menu.lst
# menu.lst produced by grub4dosconfig-v1.8.0
color blue/cyan yellow/blue white/black cyan/black
#splashimage=/splash.xpm
timeout 10
default 0

# Frugal installed Puppy

title Puppy carolite 1.2 (sdc1/carolite)
  uuid 88fcd9cc-5d64-4b0a-a38f-51c3c589f5f1
  kernel /carolite/vmlinuz  pmedia=usbflash psubdir=carolite pfix=fsck,copy
  initrd /carolite/initrd.gz

# Advanced Menu
title Advanced menu
  configfile /menu-advanced.lst
  commandline
#


And here's the contents of /etc/rc.d/PUPSTATE:

Code:
# cat /etc/rc.d/PUPSTATE
PUPMODE=13
PDEV1=''
DEV1FS=''
PUPSFS='sdb1,ext2,/carolite/puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs'
PUPSAVE='sdb1,ext2,/carolite/carolitesave.2fs'
PMEDIA='usbflash'
#ATADRIVES is all internal ide/pata/sata drives, excluding optical, excluding usb...
ATADRIVES='sda '
#ATAOPTICALDRIVES is list of non-usb optical drives...
ATAOPTICALDRIVES=''
#these directories are unionfs/aufs layers in /initrd...
SAVE_LAYER='/pup_ro1'
PUP_LAYER='/pup_ro2'
#The partition that has the carolitesave file is mounted here...
PUP_HOME='/mnt/dev_save'
#(in /initrd) ...note, /mnt/home is a link to it.
#this file has extra kernel drivers and firmware...
ZDRV='sdb1,ext2,/carolite/zdrv_carolite_1.2.sfs'
ADRV='sdb1,ext2,/carolite/adrv_carolite_1.2.sfs'
#complete set of modules in the initrd (moved to main f.s.)...
ZDRVINIT='no'
#Partition no. override on boot drive to which session is (or will be) saved...
PSAVEMARK=''
#


Questions:

-- Does Carolite install itself in RAM automatically at boot, or does this have to be done by a command/bootcode? (In Puppeee4.4, "Run In Ram" is an option on the boot screen, but this option is not on the Carolite Advanced Menu.)

During Carolite's boot, "Installing Carolite.xxxx to RAM" appears on the scrolling boot screen (log?), which suggests that the other boot files are not being loaded into RAM (or are they all contained in the Carolite.xxxx file?).

The warning notification "Do not unmount sdb1" (the boot partition) appears momentarily on the Carolite desktop at end of boot, nor does the sdb1 drive icon have an "Eject Volume" entry in the right-click context menu) which further suggest that not everything needed to run from RAM has been copied to RAM during the boot (if it were, the flash drive should be removable).

-- Aren't these frugal-install Puppies all supposed to run in RAM?

-- If Carolite isn't installing itself to RAM at boot, how can I make it do so (aside from the pfix=copy command already in menu.lst?

-- Is it possible that it's running slowly because it's copying to RAM but taking up too much of it?

-- What about zram? Is that implemented in Puppies? Can it be turned on? How?

-- Are there any other boot codes I should add?

-- When should a PBS bootloader be used? (When I installed a Puppy to a 4gb ext2 partition (sba1) on an 8gb stick (sba), it would only boot if the bootloader was installed in sba, not in sba1 (the Puppy partition). Why? Can someone explain it to me, when and how to use PBS?

I really like Carolite-1.2, and if someone will help me out here I'll stick to it as my preferred OS.

Cheers.

Mike

_________________
Carolite-1.2, Puppeee-4.4 on bootable 16Gb flash drives; Asus eeePC 1000HA w/Atom CPU, 1Gb RAM, 160Gb HDD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sheldonisaac

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 507
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jul 2015, 20:22    Post subject: Re: Why does Carolite-1.2 run so slowly?  

Mike7 wrote:

I used Rhadon's install for Carolite-1-2 (copy files from iso then use grub4dosconfig), which worked. Carolite boots and runs, but it runs slowly. Too slowly.

Here's my current menu.lst file (I added the copy command to the original pfix=fsck):

Code:
# more menu.lst
# menu.lst produced by grub4dosconfig-v1.8.0
color blue/cyan yellow/blue white/black cyan/black
#splashimage=/splash.xpm
timeout 10
default 0

# Frugal installed Puppy

title Puppy carolite 1.2 (sdc1/carolite)
  uuid 88fcd9cc-5d64-4b0a-a38f-51c3c589f5f1
  kernel /carolite/vmlinuz  pmedia=usbflash psubdir=carolite pfix=fsck,copy
  initrd /carolite/initrd.gz

Mike7, I don't see why it should run slowly.
I haven't used it for many months, but will try it and edit this message.

-----------
Oops. Sorry. I can't get it to boot. Can't find the puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs

_________________
Dell E6410: LuPu Super 2 & various Puppys; Dell D610: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2, Carolite
Intel D865GBF: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2
Acer Aspire One: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2; ASUS P5A: MS-Windows 98SE, Puppy Linux 2.14X
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
starhawk

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 4005
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jul 2015, 21:05    Post subject:  

What EeePC do you have, Mike7...?
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeslr


Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 1057
Location: Union New Jersey USA

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jul 2015, 21:14    Post subject: Puppy use of RAM  

Hi Mike7,

I first started running Pups at a time both RAM and Hard-drive Storage were expensive and the mandate from our "Benevolent Dictator" was that if at all possible ISOs were to be kept under 100 Mb in order that on boot a Pup could load "entirely into RAM." None of the foregoing is true today.

All my computers have at least 2 Gbs of RAM; a couple 4 Gbs. And their processors are a couple orders of magnitude faster than the computers with which I first started using Pups. These changes took place so fast that I've never had reason to investigate what purpose the boot argument "copy" served. I've never used it--not certain what its supposed to do. But, like you my sense is that it forces the copying of the pup_xxx.sfs into RAM and consequently slows down booting. If so, it may also slow down operations where you have a large SFS and limited RAM by leaving little RAM for later operations. See below.

And until a couple months ago, I guessed wrong as to how Puppy's "merge-file" system worked. Then, in a discussion regarding how Puppy manages SFSes, nic007 provided --what I'm sure he thought was a simplified for layman-- explanation. [You know, of course, that the Pup_xxx.sfs file included in the ISO is an SFS file]. I am, however, an inveterate layman, and one with a poor memory for details. But the following is my "take-away", together with a "home-spun" illustration.

All changes take place in RAM, regardless of what operating system is in use [unless and until written to storage]. When Puppy boots [?without the "copy" argument?], it reads the SFSes and copies into RAM from the SFSes only so much of the contents of its SFS files as (a) RAM can hold* and (b) is necessary to respond to the next user input**. Illustration > On boot, you see a desktop including an icon to bring up the Menu, perhaps some desktop icons, a task bar with other icons and a mouse-cursor.

* I recall it being mentioned that this was "capped" at 256 Mb so as to leave some RAM for "working", could be wrong, and even if right at the time may no longer apply.

** Personal experiment with an 175 Mb LibreOffice.SFS showed that when loaded on the fly, --it showed up on the Menu-- but not opened, only 32 Mb of RAM was used. If loaded entirely in RAM it would require over 500 Mbs of RAM.

As you open an application, Puppy reads from the SFS (SaveFile, Pup_xxx.sfs or Application.SFS) holding that application only so much as is necessary to respond to your next command and copies it into RAM. Additionally, Puppy will create a list in RAM of what applications are open or, more particularly, what parts of such application are currently in RAM. And so on until Puppy receives a command to load into RAM something which would exceed the amount of available RAM.

What Puppy then does is create space in RAM to perform the commanded action. It does this by deleting from RAM those "parts" of open applications not currently necessary to perform the action commanded but first creating a list of those "parts" it is about to delete from RAM (and, I think, the location on the SFS where they are to be found).

That's, at least, how I picture it. IIRC, nic007 mentioned something about inodes? If so, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inode

A "Wellminded" search of "nic007 SFS inodes" might locate his actual explanation.

If your computer has more than 1 USB-port, try moving things around. I've notice that some of my old computers have both USB 1 and USB 2 ports. USB 1 is fine for a mouse. But slow as molasses for a USB-Key.

Other questions:
Some for you: I don't recall which eeepc you have? The 701sd? Or more to the point, how much RAM does it have?

zram -- know nothing about it, other than it has to be implemented in the kernel used, which apparently it's not and for Carolite probably never will be.

Puppy's boot loaders always have to be installed to the root of a drive; consequently sda rather than sda1.

I've no idea what PBS bootloader refers to.

Have you considered installing Carolite to a folder on your eeepc's internal drive? I'm not suggesting replacing the eeepc's bootloader. Just copy Puppy's files to a UNIQUELY NAMED FOLDER on the internal drive, re-run Grub4dos having it write to the USB-Key but NOT limiting its search to the Key. Thereafter, if you boot with the Key plugged in, its menu will offer to load the Pup on the internal drive; with the Key not plugged in, it will use whatever bootloader is on the internal drive. Reading thru a USB-port is always much slower than reading an internal drive. IIRC, 10 to 15 times slower.

If you try the above, read jpep's and shinobar's threads which are the 3rd and 4th "Stickies" on the "How To" Subforum. Grub4Dos may not see even an eeepc 701sd's internal drive as being a flash drive. And you'll probably still want to use your USB-key to store data.

mikesLr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike7


Joined: 18 Feb 2013
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jul 2015, 23:44    Post subject:  

starhawk-

Quote:
What EeePC do you have, Mike7?

See my signature, below.

M.

_________________
Carolite-1.2, Puppeee-4.4 on bootable 16Gb flash drives; Asus eeePC 1000HA w/Atom CPU, 1Gb RAM, 160Gb HDD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike7


Joined: 18 Feb 2013
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jul 2015, 23:46    Post subject:  

sheldon-

Quote:
Can't find the puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs

That would be a problem <grin>.

M.

_________________
Carolite-1.2, Puppeee-4.4 on bootable 16Gb flash drives; Asus eeePC 1000HA w/Atom CPU, 1Gb RAM, 160Gb HDD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike7


Joined: 18 Feb 2013
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 00:38    Post subject: Re: Puppy use of RAM  

Hi, mikeslr.

Thanks for replying in detail. I'm going to try and do the same, and see if we can get a useful dialogue going on this issue, which i think is important beyond the scope of my problems with Carolite-1.2.

Quote:
I've never had reason to investigate what purpose the boot argument "copy" served. I've never used it--not certain what its supposed to do. But, like you my sense is that it forces the copying of the pup_xxx.sfs into RAM and consequently slows down booting.

Yes, the "copy" grub4dos bootcode (copy2ram in Syslinux) tells the bootloader to copy files to RAM, making for a slower boot but supposedly a faster OS. There is an opposite bootcode ("noram" IIRC) if you want a fast boot and don't care if the OS is slow. What I don't get is how my bootloader knows to copy the puppy files to RAM without the "copy" bootcode in menu.lst (it wasn't there when G4D first ran).

Quote:
All changes take place in RAM, regardless of what operating system is in use

I assume you mean by this all Puppies.

Quote:
When Puppy boots [?without the "copy" argument?], it reads the SFSes and copies into RAM from the SFSes only so much of the contents of its SFS files as (a) RAM can hold* and (b) is necessary to respond to the next user input**.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Quote:
Personal experiment with an 175 Mb LibreOffice.SFS showed that when loaded on the fly, --it showed up on the Menu-- but not opened, only 32 Mb of RAM was used. If loaded entirely in RAM it would require over 500 Mbs of RAM. . . As you open an application, Puppy reads from the SFS (SaveFile, Pup_xxx.sfs or Application.SFS) holding that application only so much as is necessary to respond to your next command and copies it into RAM.

Okay, got it.

Still, the fact is that I'm running other Puppy versions (Puppeee-4.4, Pup-301-eee, Akeeeta) that were installed the same way as Carolite, and they are fast. Really fast. Just like what you'd expect from a run-in-RAM OS. But not Carolite (whose SFS files are no bigger than those of these other OSes).

Quote:
If your computer has more than 1 USB-port, try moving things around.

Nope. The other Puppies, all on similar pendrives, run from the same USB port as Carolite.

Quote:
I don't recall which eeepc you have?

See sig below. (Asus 1000HA).

Quote:
how much RAM does it have?

1Gb.

Quote:
Puppy's boot loaders always have to be installed to the root of a drive; consequently sda rather than sda1.

Okay.

Quote:
Have you considered installing Carolite to a folder on your eeepc's internal drive?

I am using Linux-on-a-stick specifically because the HDD on my netbook has gotten old and tired and I want to avoid using it as much as possible. Puppy on a pendrive permits this.

Quote:
Reading thru a USB-port is always much slower than reading an internal drive.

Actually, the fast Puppies (Puppeee-4.4, Pup-301-eee, etc.) on USB drives are faster than anything on my HDD (WindowsXP, 80% free space in C:\, carefully defragged).

No, there is something strange going on with Carolite. And I would very much like to get to the bottom of it. Maybe the Carolina people (rg66, Geoffrey, etc.) will give me a hand with this.

Mike

_________________
Carolite-1.2, Puppeee-4.4 on bootable 16Gb flash drives; Asus eeePC 1000HA w/Atom CPU, 1Gb RAM, 160Gb HDD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeslr


Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 1057
Location: Union New Jersey USA

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 09:39    Post subject: Re: Puppy use of RAM  

Hi Mike7,
Mike7 wrote:

Quote:
All changes take place in RAM, regardless of what operating system is in use

I assume you mean by this all Puppies.


No. I mean regardless of what operating system is in use. Windows, other Linux OSes, even a Full Install Pup utilize routines which just write RAM to Storage in the background perhaps without notifying you that it is doing so.

A Frugally installed Pup uses modified routines enabling the various "Pupmodes" - 5, No SaveFile, don't write ever; 12 -Save File, write periodically per Save Session Config instructions; 13 - SaveFile on USB-Key, Write only at Shutdown unless Save Session Config instructs not to.

Sorry, I can't think of anything else which pertains to or could work-around your problem.

But I do have a question. Compared to the other Pups, is Carolite (a) slow to boot; (b) slow to open applications & files; or (c) both.

mikesLr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sheldonisaac

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 507
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 09:52    Post subject:
Subject description: Can't find the puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs
 

Mike7 wrote:
sheldon-
Quote:
Can't find the puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs

That would be a problem <grin>.
M.

I'll try it on the D610; maybe I never did use it on this E6410
_________________

LATER: Booted this Dell Latitude D610 laptop OK. Frugal Carolite 1.2 on hard drive Linux partition. 2.13GHz Pentium M, 2GB memory.
Seems fine.

Please remind me, what is it that "runs slowly. Too slowly" on your computer? Web browser? File operations?

_________________
Dell E6410: LuPu Super 2 & various Puppys; Dell D610: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2, Carolite
Intel D865GBF: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2
Acer Aspire One: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2; ASUS P5A: MS-Windows 98SE, Puppy Linux 2.14X
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike7


Joined: 18 Feb 2013
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 14:53    Post subject: Re: Puppy use of RAM  

mikeslr-

Quote:
No. I mean regardless of what operating system is in use. Windows, other Linux OSes, even a Full Install Pup utilize routines which just write RAM to Storage in the background perhaps without notifying you that it is doing so.

I'm a little dumb sometimes. I guess I knew that.

Quote:
I can't think of anything else which pertains to or could work-around your problem.

Others have said that Carolite is "heavy", mostly due to Xfce, so maybe I'll just have to live with it if I want to use this OS. But it's frustrating because the other Puppies are so fast.

Quote:
Compared to the other Pups, is Carolite (a) slow to boot

Not slow to boot or shut down. Actually, it appears to be faster than some of the others, which is surprising when you consider how big its SFS files are:
    carolitesave.2fs____________536.9 MB
    puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs_____73.6 MB
    zdrv_carolite_1.2.sfs_______24.6 MB
    adrv_carolite_1.2.sfs_______40.2 MB

Of course, it's not loading all of that into RAM. But just from the size of the save file, it ought to boot slower than the other pups. But it boots just as fast or faster. No complaints there.

I do wonder why the save file is so large, especially since I've moved all my own files and documents to the second partition on the pendrive so they wouldn't be included in the savefile. I guess most of that savefile weight is browser cache and such, and it's massive. I'm gonna have to do something about it.

Quote:
(b) slow to open applications & files

That's it. It's way too slow opening up even small-ish apps like Geany and Gparted, not to mention Firefox.

It's probably a RAM problem, together with the Xfce thing. But it sure is a pain. If there's anything I can do to make it run faster, like creating swap or zswap, I'd be a lot happier with this Puppeee, which otherwise I really like a whole lot.

M.

_________________
Carolite-1.2, Puppeee-4.4 on bootable 16Gb flash drives; Asus eeePC 1000HA w/Atom CPU, 1Gb RAM, 160Gb HDD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sheldonisaac

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 507
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 16:26    Post subject: Re: Puppy use of RAM  

Mike7 (in part) wrote:
Not slow to boot or shut down. Actually, it appears to be faster than some of the others, which is surprising when you consider how big its SFS files are:
    carolitesave.2fs____________536.9 MB
    puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs_____73.6 MB
    zdrv_carolite_1.2.sfs_______24.6 MB
    adrv_carolite_1.2.sfs_______40.2 MB


Those sizes don't seem so very big.

My SuperLuPu2 on this computer is:
    4MB initrd.gz
    167MB sulu_002.sfs
    sulusave-may26 (directory 87MB)
    3MB vmlinuz

_________________
Dell E6410: LuPu Super 2 & various Puppys; Dell D610: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2, Carolite
Intel D865GBF: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2
Acer Aspire One: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2; ASUS P5A: MS-Windows 98SE, Puppy Linux 2.14X
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
starhawk

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 4005
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 17:15    Post subject:  

I have an EeePC 1000HE... two things are bogging your system down, Mike7.

One, XFCE is quite heavy. Like "GNOME2 minus a pound or two" heavy. No, really. Look here. MATE (in case you don't know) is basically the "we continued it because they wouldn't" edition of GNOME2.

The other issue is that your RAM is only a single gig. You should have two. If you are in the US, buy this stick right here --> http://www.ebay.com/itm/181799623254

To install that RAM (or any other stick) --

Pull the power cord and battery (that's very important -- YANK BOTH), then remove the two screws on the battery/RAM door on the underside of the laptop. Pry the door off (it will argue a little) and you should see the lone RAM slot towards the front of the system. Pop the two metal latches to the side (one on each side) and the old stick will pop up a little. Pull it out. Put the new stick in at a bit of an angle (*about* 30deg up from the horizontal, but don't get the protractor out, you can 'feel' it when it's right...) and push it down till the latches click. Put the door back (popping it into place, it'll argue a little again) and screw it down, shove the battery back in (remember to lock it with both slider-switch things), plug it in and power it up. It will probably tell you that RAM has increased. That's good Smile and you're all done at that point.

If you have a little money you can also put an SSD in there. My 1000HE has a 2gb RAM stick and a 32gb Patriot SSD... not one of the good ones but one of the ones I could afford Wink SSDs are ridiculously expensive in comparison to platter drives, but that's because they go so fast that there's no dust for the platter disks to eat Wink Razz you don't need to pay for a SATA-III (6Gbps) drive -- the system will have its work cut out keeping up with a SATA-II (3Gbps) disk -- but you will notice an increase in speed with any SSD. The older Intel M25 series is quite nice, and quite nicely priced for an SSD as well. I have one in another system... good stuff.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeslr


Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 1057
Location: Union New Jersey USA

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 21:42    Post subject: Written after my last & only just reading intervening posts  

Written after my last post & I've only just read the intervening posts. Not taking the time to edit, except to add the "post-script".

Hi Mike7,

After re-reading your posts and taking a break, I did have a couple other ideas. I noticed that all the Pup's you indicated were "fast" were older Pups.

The creation of operating systems is an evolutionary process. Hardware manufacturers, competing with each other, develop hardware with more "bells & whistles". Developers of operating systems --to remain competitive or “just because we can” -- have to include software to use those "bells and whistles". This is especially true with regard to things the consumer will notice such as the Graphical User Interface and the quality of the Graphics Display.

The problem is that each increase in complexity of task to be performed involves an increase in the size of the software needed to perform it. Simple illustration: graphics software which must provide the proper display for 10 different monitors is obviously going to be larger and more complex than if only one monitor could be used. This increase in size and complexity of graphics software is, at least in part, driven by the increasing "richness" of content provided by Webpages: That Web-browsers have to be able to render such content = larger browsers. You'll find numerous posts on the Forum complaining about how “bloated” firefox has gotten. The latest firefox pet is 61 Mb. A Chromium 40 SFS is worse, at 77 Mb. Compare to Opera 12.16 published about 2 years ago: 18 Mb. The firefox of that time was about the same size.

Pets and SFSes are compressed files. To load them into RAM they have to be decompressed at least in part (see prior post). Decompression is work done by the CPU. Decompressing something 3 times the size of the Opera 12.16 pet requires a CPU to work 3 times longer. To install a pet into your SaveFile requires that you have at least 3 times the unoccupied space in your SaveFile as the size of the pet. To entirely load an Application.SFS into RAM requires roughly 3 times as much RAM as the amount of Storage occupied by the SFS. Even if you only had the current firefox pet installed into your SaveFile, if you were to entirely load that SaveFile on boot –as apparently you do using the “copy” argument-- it will utilize roughly 183 Mb of RAM.

The First Rule of thumb for speeding up a computer system is to add RAM. A corollary of that Rule is not to use RAM to hold information which you don't currently need. A second corollary is to employ applications which require the smallest footprint in RAM if they can do the job you want done.

Although Opera 12.16 is my web-browser of choice, some current websites don't display properly. And other websites won't display at all, notifying me that my browser is unsupported. [On those occasions, I copy the problem URL, open a second browser and paste the URL into its address bar].

Additionally, I run Opera from a folder on /mnt/home: that is as an decompressed External App merely symlinked to my operating system. If you're interested, you'll find the report of the experiment I mentioned in my prior post, together with a Table illustrating how different ways of running an application impact on the resources a Pup employs, and by inference its performance. http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=84457. That webpage includes a link to another which provides instructions on how to create “Program Folders.”

[Caveat concerning Program Folders: Unlike SFSes or Pets installed to a SaveFile, the contents of a Program Folder are not compressed in any way. Changes to them are written immediately. As you have root privileges when running Puppy, so too might any malware your browser acquires. I've used Opera, Seamonkey and Firefox via Program Folders for the last 3 years without a problem. But my Pups sit behind two firewalls –my router's and their own-- my browsers employ security addons such as “NoScript”, and on receiving a warning that a Webpage is reputed to contain malware I heed the advice not to open it unless I have good reason to believe that report is in error].

You can accomplish much of the same reduction is resource usage by employing Shinobar's portable-apps, among which are firefox, seamonkey, and Wine and gimp. And they're much easier to set up than the instructions I provided for Program Folders.

Included in the Carolite ISO are two SFSes: adrv_xxx.sfs and puppy. The puppy_xxx.sfs provides applications essential for Carolite to run. Adrv_xxx.sfs includes other applications the devs thought likely every user might want in a general purpose operating system. Adrv occupies 39 Mb of storage; puppy 71 mb of Storage. Using the “copy” argument, on boot to desktop you've already used 330 Mbs of RAM.

When I use any Carolina, the first thing I do is delete or move Adrv so that it isn't loaded. Not that the Devs of Carolina have done a bad job in selecting applications the average user may want. It just that I'm never going to use most of them. Why should I was any RAM loading any part of them? For example, I know I'm never going to use Abiword or Gnumeric. For just a quick note, I'll use geany. If I set out to write something long, like this post, I'll use LibreOffice Writer which can be loaded/unloaded on the fly. [Having 4 Gb of Ram, the only time I actually unload it is to load a newer version].

Taking a clue from RSH/LazyPuppy, I use Carolina's built in SFS-builder to download and build SFSes of the applications I want. IIRC, about the only applications I actually always install to my SaveFile are Rox and maybe Geany which I do on first boot: Rox because I find it easier to use for some operations I may need immediately and often thereafter; and maybe Geany as I don't recall it being included in the Pup_xxx.sfs for the same reason. [On those computers I use to edit videos I also install flowblade which require python and which I've never figured out how to setup as an SFS]. In short, when Carolina boots up it is as much as possible a “barebones” system.

One of the ways in which Linux keeps up with the demand for Graphics Bells and Whistles is to constantly recreate more capable graphics libraries (glibs) and GTK-dialogs (Gimp-Tool-Kit display routines). [Remember, complex=larger]. Such libraries and GTK-dialogs are not only used by the applications you install to your SaveFile, but frequently are expected to be present by those who create SFSes. One of the reasons the pre-1.3 Carolinas can't run current versions of Chromium is that they use older (but lighter) glibs. Similarly, Carolinas can't run gimp 2.8. Despite that a gimp 2.8 SFS requires 28 Mbs of storage, 10 Mbs more than a gimp 2.7 SFS, it looks to the OS to supply the necessary glibs.

The Carolina's I use are Vanguard, which are based on 1.3. Consequently, comparing them to your Carolite 1.2 with older glibs and gtk-dialogs would be misleading. The Puppies I run closest in resource usage to your Carolite –indeed, the least resource hungry Pups on any of my computers-- are rerwin's Lucid Revitalized. Despite that rerwin has updated many of the applications an included patches for discovered vulnerabilities, the Revitalized Lucids still use glibs and GTK-dialogs first published about the same time as those used in Carolina.

Even though my desktop has 3.7 usable RAM and I have it load LibreOffice, Gimp and two other SFSes, and installed into my SaveFile far more apps than I advise, on bootup , employing the RAM conserving routines I discussed above LxTask-manager –one of the apps I installed-- reports that my system is only uses 117 Mbs of RAM, inclusive of the 8.7 Mbs of RAM required to run LxTask-manager.

So, try the following:

1. Remove the “copy” argument from your boot argument.
2. Remove Adrive.
3. If you find you need some application, either use Shinobar's portable version –if available-- or use Carolite's SFS-Builder to create an SFS which you can load/unload.
4. If you're still not obtaining satisfactory performance, try the basic version of rerwin's Lucid Revitalized. [Regarding the latter, note that it can use any application built for Lucid/Lupu [you'll find them on the ibiblio and its clones], which you can convert into SFSes, and the wealth of SFSes RSH built for LazyPuppy: http://smokey01.com/RSH/LazY-Puppy-201/lp201-sfs/, Don't forget to look in the “single-apps” folder].

mikesLr

P.S. Per sheldonisaac - 2 Gb of RAM, runs fine.
Per Starhawk: Two things are bogging your system down.. the second is " only a single gig. You should have two."
If I now understand the "copy" argument, just adding up the SFSes you load at bootup, i.e., the system files, even disregarding their "expansion" into RAM that comes to 675.5 of your 1,000 mb.

And yah, there's definitely something screwy about your SaveFile. As you noted, most probably your browser cache. Definitely look for instructions about moving /.mozilla out of SaveFile. And setting it to clear on closing. Perhaps try Palemoon =firefox-lite, but remember it too places its cache in root, in a hidden folder named .moonchild productions which will have to be moved. Or delete .mozilla entirely and install shinobar's portable-firefox. portable-firefox/seamonkey are configured to store their cache's outside your SaveFile, and their installation will over-write the desktop files (which generate the menu entries). But I'm not sure what happens when a .mozilla folder is already @ /root. So delete it. And it wouldn't hurt to run pfind and delete any other firefox/seamonkey files before installing a portable. Leave /usr/lib/mozilla alone. It just contains plugins, such as flash, the portables will use.

Starhawk suggests that Xfce may be weighing things down. Sheldonisaac recommends SuperLupu2 which is one of rerwin's Lucid Revitalized. It is Lucid, but uses the kernel from precise 5.7.1-retro. Unless you have some specific software needs in mind, I think the basic Lucid Revitalized, http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=739518#739518 will run the lightest, and provide the greatest assortment of applications. Seems we all have similar ideas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
starhawk

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 4005
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 22:16    Post subject:  

I know for a fact that XFCE is heavier than eg JWM, IceWM, etc. I haven't done scientific tests, like the writer of the article I linked to -- but I can tell you that TahrPup 602 stock runs noticeably a lot faster than X-Tahr 1b2, rg66's XFCE-ized TahrPup 602 -- and 90+% of what rg66's modifications are to install XFCE/Thunar in place of JWM/ROX. I don't believe he's done really anything else, but I'll leave the other ~10% in there in case I'm wrong.

Mind you, I'm strictly talking on the same hardware, specifically the EeePC 1000HE I mentioned earlier. If I pull up TahrPup 602 to unpack a DEB package, it's incredibly responsive. (Mind you that's without savefile... for now...) X-Tahr 1b2 is... a little slow. Not a lot. But enough that I notice.

I want to say that the one time I fired up LXPup (it was a while ago) it was marginally faster than XFCE but still a bit lagging compared to JWM... might've been me, though. I do not like LXDE so I stay away from it.

I put up with XFCE, though, because the slowdown is worth it to me -- and on my main system, I don't notice it. (Main system runs Carolina Vanguard RC2.) That's different hardware, though, so apples and oranges -- but -- even on the netbook it's worth the speed penalty to me. There are just some things that I can't stand about JWM/ROX...

That's ultimately the question -- what's important to you? If speed is all you care about, to the point that you don't mind being stuck with old apps -- go with an older Pup. Heck, if you don't even want wallpaper, hunt down TurboPup Xtreme. It's based on Puppy 412 and is blazing fast and super light -- but it's also limiting and ugly. If you care about having a computer that doesn't look "stuck in the 90s" and you're willing to give up some speed... LXPup or one of rg66's X-Pups is for you (X-Precise, X-Slacko, X-Tahr), or maybe go to Carolina Vanguard. Of course, if you want both speed and looks you're kinda screwed, but that's because of how it all works, like mikeslr said.

As an aside -- whatever happened to IceWM? No, really. Did it die out or something? I haven't seen an IceWM based Pup in like forever...

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike7


Joined: 18 Feb 2013
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Sun 12 Jul 2015, 23:38    Post subject:
Subject description: Can't find the puppy_carolite_1.2.sfs
 

sheldonisaac wrote:
Booted this Dell Latitude D610 laptop OK. Frugal Carolite 1.2 on hard drive Linux partition. 2.13GHz Pentium M, 2GB memory.
Seems fine.

It's hard to compare your system with mine. My Carolite is on a pendrive, my CPU is a 1.6GHz Atom, and I have only 1 Gb of RAM.

Quote:
Please remind me, what is it that "runs slowly. Too slowly" on your computer? Web browser? File operations?

Yes, all of that, especially opening applications. Some of them open so slowly that I'm not sure they are going to open and I try to open them again and end up with two instances of them. It's that slow, plus I am an impatient person <grin>. Also, I was running Puppeee-4.4 before Carolite and it was very fast. The apps opened instantaneously.

Quote:
Those sizes don't seem so very big.

My SuperLuPu2 on this computer is:

4MB initrd.gz
167MB sulu_002.sfs
sulusave-may26 (directory 87MB)
3MB vmlinuz

Your base SFS is twice the size of mine, but your savefile is tiny in comparison: 87MB (?) compared to 537MB. Plus I have the two driver files.

M.

_________________
Carolite-1.2, Puppeee-4.4 on bootable 16Gb flash drives; Asus eeePC 1000HA w/Atom CPU, 1Gb RAM, 160Gb HDD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 4 [47 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
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: 0.0947s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0038s) ][ GZIP on ]