FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-02-2010, 03:00 AM
Mark
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

I recently updated to OpenOffice 3.2 and I noticed that it, and the
latest Evolution, seem to be incredibly slow for some operations.

E.g., in OO, about half the time when I'm editing something, it takes
anywhere from 10-30 seconds for OO to respond to a click on one of the
icons or menu items, and Evo is taking forever to format messages.

During these times the gnome-system-monitor icon on my panel is
showing almost no activity, and if I expand it to the full window, it
shows the same.

Is anyone else seeing this?

I'm running the x86_64 release on an Athlon II X4, 2.6GHz with 4GB of
memory and lots of available space in memory and on disk.

Thanks in advance.

Mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-02-2010, 06:46 AM
JohnS
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 20:00 -0700, Mark wrote:
> I recently updated to OpenOffice 3.2 and I noticed that it, and the
> latest Evolution, seem to be incredibly slow for some operations.

Latest version for CentOS 5.5 is
openoffice.org-writer-3.1.1-19.5.el5_5.1
Where did you obtain 3.2 from? That may be your slowness as on my 64
bit workstation I see none at all. Loads in about 3 secs.

evolution-2.12.3-19.el5:
Now Evolution on my 32 bit workstation I have 1555 emails in it and it
is not slow, 8 different email accounts also, especially even though it
is GUI based instead of console. About every 2000 mails I back it up
and start over again from 0.

> E.g., in OO, about half the time when I'm editing something, it takes
> anywhere from 10-30 seconds for OO to respond to a click on one of the
> icons or menu items, and Evo is taking forever to format messages.

Converting a *.doc file to *.pdf only takes about 3 secs. What type of
Graphics card you have? Yea I know weird question but can cause your
problem also.

<snip>
> I'm running the x86_64 release on an Athlon II X4, 2.6GHz with 4GB of
> memory and lots of available space in memory and on disk.

Looked at your memory usage? Is it swapping by chance? #free. Have you
looked at top while using those apps? What about spamd in Evolution?
Disable all non needed services.

Here is the memory for my 32 bit workstation for Evolution + spamd + a
few consoles/pine opened + firefox. & sometimes links & screen. No
problem here what so ever.
]#free
total used free shared buffers
cached
Mem: 774648 755020 19628 0 68968
368716
-/+ buffers/cache: 317336 457312
Swap: 1572856 12 1572844

John

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-02-2010, 11:36 PM
Mark
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:46 PM, JohnS <jses27@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Latest version for CentOS 5.5 is
> openoffice.org-writer-3.1.1-19.5.el5_5.1
> Where did you obtain 3.2 from? *That may be your slowness as on my 64
> bit workstation I see none at all. *Loads in about 3 secs.
>
I have been using releases direct from OOo, but on the off chance that
this was the problem, and since 3.1.1 isn't that far behind 3.2, I
"updated" to the CentOS release. There's still a problem, though - it
doesn't happen all the time, but every so often, apparently at random,
some mouse click command will just stop for 10-30 seconds before it
does anything. The first one I hit was doing a File->Open Recent -
while I was running the mouse down the list, it stopped on the one
above the file I wanted for about 12 seconds before it loaded the
file.

> evolution-2.12.3-19.el5:
> Now Evolution on my 32 bit workstation I have 1555 emails in it and it
> is not slow, 8 different email accounts also, especially even though it
> is GUI based instead of console. *About every 2000 mails I back it up
> and start over again from 0.
>
Same version here. This only seems to happen once in a blue moon -
probably not the same issue. I eventually gave up, killed the
Evolution processes (because it wouldn't exit normally or allow me a
force-quit) and restarted. No problems after that, except a delayed
startup and the usual duplicate messages from those I had moved before
it died.

> Converting a *.doc file to *.pdf only takes about 3 secs. *What type of
> Graphics card you have? *Yea I know weird question but can cause your
> problem also.
>
I was just editing a *.odt file - no conversions, and the problem
doesn't seem to be related to the operation invoked, just getting the
invocation to take place.

nVidia GeForce 7200S, but I'm not seeing this anywhere else, just OO.

> Looked at your memory usage? Is it swapping by chance? #free. *Have you
> looked at top while using those apps? *What about spamd in Evolution?
> Disable all non needed services.
>
Did most of that (except spamd in Evo) and nothing showed up in top -
the big CPU hog was SeaMonkey at 23% of one core, the others were all
idle or lower use. Almost no swapping:

$ free
total used free shared
buffers cached
Mem: 4050968 4022184 28784 0 152404 2700584
-/+ buffers/cache: 1169196 2881772
Swap: 8008392 348 8008044

Don't see a problem here....

Thanks.

Mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-03-2010, 02:54 PM
JohnS
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 16:36 -0700, Mark wrote:

> Did most of that (except spamd in Evo) and nothing showed up in top -
> the big CPU hog was SeaMonkey at 23% of one core, the others were all
> idle or lower use. Almost no swapping:
---
Try killing Seamonkey/nspluginwrapper ie, shutdown then try.

What is your running kernel? Newest. Asking because it may be that your
problem is machine independent as a client of mine on a Compaq had the
same problem 6 months ago. Fix it I just removed the new kernel so it
use the prior one. One kernel showed the problem and one did not.

John

Even on a 900MHz Athlon I see no problem with CentOS 5.5

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-03-2010, 10:29 PM
Mark
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:54 AM, JohnS <jses27@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Try killing Seamonkey/nspluginwrapper ie, shutdown then try.
>
No difference.

> What is your running kernel? Newest. *Asking because it may be that your
> problem is machine independent as a client of mine on a Compaq had the
> same problem 6 months ago. *Fix it I just removed the new kernel so it
> use the prior one. *One kernel showed the problem and one did not.
>
$ uname -a
Linux marichter 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 19:04:48 EDT 2010
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

I may go back one to see if that makes a difference....

# cat /etc/grub.conf
# grub.conf generated by anaconda
#
# Note that you do not have to rerun grub after making changes to this file
# NOTICE: You have a /boot partition. This means that
# all kernel and initrd paths are relative to /boot/, eg.
# root (hd0,0)
# kernel /vmlinuz-version ro root=/dev/sda2
# initrd /initrd-version.img
boot=/dev/sda
default=0
timeout=5
splashimage=(hd0,0)/grub/splash.xpm.gz
hiddenmenu
title CentOS (2.6.18-194.8.1.el5)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 ro root=LABEL=/wroot noapic rhgb
initrd /initrd-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5.img
title CentOS (2.6.18-194.3.1.el5)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 ro root=LABEL=/wroot noapic rhgb
initrd /initrd-2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.img
title CentOS (2.6.18-164.15.1.el5)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 ro root=LABEL=/wroot noapic rhgb
initrd /initrd-2.6.18-164.15.1.el5.img

I didn't see this problem at all on 2.6.18-194.3.1

Thanks.

Mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-03-2010, 11:01 PM
Mark
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mark <mhullrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:54 AM, JohnS <jses27@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is your running kernel? Newest. *Asking because it may be that your
>> problem is machine independent as a client of mine on a Compaq had the
>> same problem 6 months ago. *Fix it I just removed the new kernel so it
>> use the prior one. *One kernel showed the problem and one did not.
>>
> $ uname -a
> Linux marichter 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 19:04:48 EDT 2010
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> I may go back one to see if that makes a difference....
>

Went back to 2.6.18-194.3.1 and there are no delays, no pauses, no
hesitations....

I'll have to go look through the release notes, now.

Mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2010, 04:30 AM
JohnS
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 16:01 -0700, Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mark <mhullrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:54 AM, JohnS <jses27@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What is your running kernel? Newest. Asking because it may be that your
> >> problem is machine independent as a client of mine on a Compaq had the
> >> same problem 6 months ago. Fix it I just removed the new kernel so it
> >> use the prior one. One kernel showed the problem and one did not.
> >>
> > $ uname -a
> > Linux marichter 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 19:04:48 EDT 2010
> > x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> >
> > I may go back one to see if that makes a difference....
> >
>
> Went back to 2.6.18-194.3.1 and there are no delays, no pauses, no
> hesitations....
>
> I'll have to go look through the release notes, now.
---

You can do:
rpm -q --changelog kernel >> changelog.log
rpm -q --changelog kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 >> changelog.log

To view the changelog for patches and BZs Applied to the kernel or any
rpm. As in load up the newest one and run the command. I see a lot of
changes between the newest one and the one (194.3.1) that you tried and
said solved it. I would creep on up in versions to the newest one you
can run with out the problem then file a bug report with a good
description of the problem and type of hardware also (i think important
for your problem).

John


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2010, 07:41 AM
Mark
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, JohnS <jses27@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You can do:
> rpm -q --changelog kernel >> changelog.log *
> rpm -q --changelog kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 >> changelog.log
>
> To view the changelog for patches and BZs Applied to the kernel or any
> rpm. *As in load up the newest one and run the command. *I see a lot of
> changes between the newest one and the one (194.3.1) that you tried and
> said solved it. *I would creep on up in versions to the newest one you
> can run with out the problem then file a bug report with a good
> description of the problem and type of hardware also (i think important
> for your problem).
>

Egad - on the CentOS mirror I checked (USC), there are no kernels
between 194.3.1 and 194.8.1.

If I just build kernels from the Linux archives, would those just work
as-is under CentOS? I haven't actually done that in a while, but if
it's moderately safe using the "standard" spec files....

(I haven't looked through the changelogs yet.)

Mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-05-2010, 10:54 AM
Frank Thommen
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

Mark wrote:
> I recently updated to OpenOffice 3.2 and I noticed that it, and the
> latest Evolution, seem to be incredibly slow for some operations.
>
> E.g., in OO, about half the time when I'm editing something, it takes
> anywhere from 10-30 seconds for OO to respond to a click on one of the
> icons or menu items, and Evo is taking forever to format messages.
>
> During these times the gnome-system-monitor icon on my panel is
> showing almost no activity, and if I expand it to the full window, it
> shows the same.
>
> Is anyone else seeing this?
>
> I'm running the x86_64 release on an Athlon II X4, 2.6GHz with 4GB of
> memory and lots of available space in memory and on disk.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Mark

I'm experiencing similar problems on a DELL Optiplex 740 with the same
CPU (AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ @ 2.60 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 80
GB Hitachi Deskstar 7K80 HD). But in my case the slowness is not
restricted to OO, but the whole systems is slowed down. Even simple
actions (e.g. starting a Gnome Console) bring the load up to over 2.
Right after booting, the load is usually over 2, sometimes even up to 4.
The slowness can literally be seen during the boot process. The
problem occurs since kernel 2.6.18-194.el5. I measured the boot times
(from GRUB to gdmgreeter, booted with 'noapic'):


kernel 2.6.18-164.el5 1"03', load after boot: 0.5

kernel 2.6.18-194.el5 3"35', load after boot: 2.5
kernel 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 3"30', load after boot: 2.3
kernel 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 3"35', load after boot: 1.9


When shutting down from kernel 2.6.18-194.x, I often (around 7 of 10
times) get the following error on the console:

---------------
[...]
Shutting down hidd: [ OK ]
[ OK ] Bluetooth services:[ OK ]
Shutting down interface eth0: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 10s!
[ip:3539]

CPU 1:
Modules linked in: autofs4 hidp rfcomm l2cap bluetooth lockd sunrpc
ip_conntrack
_netbios_ns ipt_REJECT xt_state ip_conntrack nfnetlink iptable_filter
ip_tables
ip6t_REJECT xt_tcpudp ip6table_filter ip6_tables x_tables ipv6 xfrm_nalgo
crypto
_api cpufreq_ondemand powernow_k8 freq_table dm_multipath scsi_dh video
backligh
t sbs power_meter i2c_ec dell_wmi wmi button battery asus_acpi
acpi_memhotplug a
c lp sr_mod cdrom snd_hda_intel sg snd_seq_dummy snd_seq_oss
snd_seq_midi_event
snd_seq snd_seq_device snd_pcm_oss snd_mixer_oss snd_pcm snd_timer
snd_page_allo
c snd_hwdep parport_pc tg3 k8_edac snd parport i2c_nforce2 floppy k8temp
shpchp
i2c_core edac_mc hwmon pcspkr soundcore dm_raid45 dm_message
dm_region_hash dm_m
em_cache dm_snapshot dm_zero dm_mirror dm_log dm_mod sata_nv libata sd_mod
scsi_
mod ext3 jbd uhci_hcd ohci_hcd ehci_hcd
Pid: 3539, comm: ip Not tainted 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 #1
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8000c9f6>] [<ffffffff8000c9f6>] __delay+0x8/0x10
RSP: 0018:ffff810125741c60 EFLAGS: 00000297
RAX: 00000000539a8625 RBX: 0000000000001388 RCX: 0000000052518896
RDX: 000000000000012b RSI: ffffc2000006044c RDI: 000000000291ae58
RBP: 00000000393a7993 R08: 0000000000000002 R09: ffff810125741d1c
R10: 0000000000000018 R11: 000005e100000300 R12: 0000000000000002
R13: ffff810125741d1c R14: 000000000000004c R15: ffffffff80225929
FS: 00002b3ee841a800(0000) GS:ffff81010438d7c0(0000)
knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
CR2: 000000365a6cc640 CR3: 0000000122af0000 CR4: 00000000000006e0

Call Trace:
[<ffffffff882444e7>] :tg3:tg3_readphy+0x77/0xdf
[<ffffffff88246d90>] :tg3:tg3_setup_copper_phy+0x86a/0xb35
[<ffffffff88247d62>] :tg3:tg3_setup_phy+0xd07/0xe39
[<ffffffff80158813>] pci_bus_read_config_word+0x71/0x83
[<ffffffff80158647>] pci_bus_write_config_dword+0x5f/0x6e
[<ffffffff88248080>] :tg3:tg3_set_power_state+0x1ec/0x96e
[<ffffffff88252c34>] :tg3:tg3_close+0x103/0x113
[<ffffffff8022f4ea>] dev_close+0x53/0x72
[<ffffffff8022e609>] dev_change_flags+0x5a/0x119
[<ffffffff80262fd8>] devinet_ioctl+0x235/0x59c
[<ffffffff80225d4f>] sock_ioctl+0x1c1/0x1e5
[<ffffffff8004206a>] do_ioctl+0x21/0x6b
[<ffffffff800300ca>] vfs_ioctl+0x457/0x4b9
[<ffffffff800b7605>] audit_syscall_entry+0x180/0x1b3
[<ffffffff8004c549>] sys_ioctl+0x59/0x78
[<ffffffff8005d28d>] tracesys+0xd5/0xe0

[ OK ]
Shutting down loopback interface: [ OK ]
[...]
---------------

The complete console of the boot process can be seen on
http://pastebin.de/8808, the console output of the shutdown/reboot
process is on http://pastebin.de/8809. Bootcharts of the two boot
processes can be seen on http://www.drosera.ch/kernelproblem/.

Memtest has been run w/o result.

Is there a way to narrow down the problem before posting a bug report?

Cheers

frank

--
Frank Thommen - Structures IT Management and Support - EMBL Heidelberg
frank.thommen@embl-heidelberg.de - +49 6221 387 8353
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-05-2010, 12:54 PM
James Pearson
 
Default CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow

Frank Thommen wrote:

> I'm experiencing similar problems on a DELL Optiplex 740 with the same
> CPU (AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ @ 2.60 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 80
> GB Hitachi Deskstar 7K80 HD). But in my case the slowness is not
> restricted to OO, but the whole systems is slowed down. Even simple
> actions (e.g. starting a Gnome Console) bring the load up to over 2.
> Right after booting, the load is usually over 2, sometimes even up to 4.

Can you post the output of lspci and lsmod ?

James Pearson
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org