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 > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-16-2008, 04:22 AM
Frank Cox
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

One of my computers folded its tent. I usually use that as an excuse to
upgrade so I purchased a new Intel dual-core machine with 4gb of ram and a
500gb hard drive.

Now I'm trying to install F8/x86_64 on it, and the installer is running
amazingly slowly. It took about ten minutes before the initial graphical
screen showed up, and things have been running amazingly slowly ever since. It
has been running for about 90 minutes now and I've just finished answering the
questions, the disk has finally formatted and I have now arrived at the
"Starting install process. This may take several minutes" screen. I guess that
means this will finish installing but at this rate it may take all night.

What's holding up the parade?

--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 05:00 AM
Da Rock
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:22:51 -0600
> From: theatre@sasktel.net
> To: fedora-list@redhat.com
> Subject: slow (s-l-o-w) install
>
> One of my computers folded its tent. I usually use that as an excuse to
> upgrade so I purchased a new Intel dual-core machine with 4gb of ram and a
> 500gb hard drive.
>
> Now I'm trying to install F8/x86_64 on it, and the installer is running
> amazingly slowly. It took about ten minutes before the initial graphical
> screen showed up, and things have been running amazingly slowly ever since. It
> has been running for about 90 minutes now and I've just finished answering the
> questions, the disk has finally formatted and I have now arrived at the
> "Starting install process. This may take several minutes" screen. I guess that
> means this will finish installing but at this rate it may take all night.
>
> What's holding up the parade?
>
> --
> MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

I had the same problem on my laptop after it came back from warranty repair. Its a pentium M 1.7Ghz with 2Gb Ram. I posted here but got no reply whatsoever, and I ended up installing using the text mode. It would take forever to get to the install, and then wouldn't get to the graphical install at all- I waited for hours but no go. In text mode at least I wasn't waiting for the graphical install to never start... Once in text mode however, it took the usual time to install. Just need to set the default runlevel to 5 when you're finished.
__________________________________________________ _______________
New music from the Rogue Traders - listen now!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=832&referral=hotma iltaglineOct07&URL=http://music.ninemsn.com.au/roguetraders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 05:36 AM
Frank Cox
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:00:03 +0000
Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It would take forever to get to the install, and then wouldn't get to the graphical install at all- I waited for hours but no go.

I tried text mode. It was about the same thing, performance-wise. It takes
about ten minutes to get to the first screen that asks you if you want to do a
text installation or a graphical installation and everything else seems to run
at the same snail's pace regardless of which option you pick.

> In text mode at least I wasn't waiting for the graphical install to never
start... Once in text mode however, it took the usual time to install.

Well, this is running. Or walking... maybe crawling. I'm up to "311 of 1419
packages completed" now, after about three hours. So it's getting there;
should be done by morning, I suppose.

I've installed Fedora 8/x86_64 on an Intel Core 2 laptop back just before
Christmas and it rattled right along, which is what makes this such an
unexpected surprise.


--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 09:43 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

> Now I'm trying to install F8/x86_64 on it, and the installer is running
> amazingly slowly. It took about ten minutes before the initial graphical

Probably wrong memory caching in the BIOS. That's a common cause of those
symptoms. If so boot with mem=2G or be patient and once you've got it
installed take a look at /proc/mtrr and that will show which memory the
system marked as cached. If its wrong then you can tweak the settings
and/or beat up the BIOS vendor

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 10:20 AM
Da Rock
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0000
> From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> To: fedora-list@redhat.com
> CC:
> Subject: Re: slow (s-l-o-w) install
>
>> Now I'm trying to install F8/x86_64 on it, and the installer is running
>> amazingly slowly. It took about ten minutes before the initial graphical
>
> Probably wrong memory caching in the BIOS. That's a common cause of those
> symptoms. If so boot with mem=2G or be patient and once you've got it
> installed take a look at /proc/mtrr and that will show which memory the
> system marked as cached. If its wrong then you can tweak the settings
> and/or beat up the BIOS vendor
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list


Is this a known fault? Is it documented? If so it may have saved me a lot of diagnostics...
__________________________________________________ _______________
New music from the Rogue Traders - listen now!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=832&referral=hotma iltaglineOct07&URL=http://music.ninemsn.com.au/roguetraders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 03:33 PM
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

---- Frank Cox <theatre@sasktel.net> wrote:
> One of my computers folded its tent. I usually use that as an excuse to
> upgrade so I purchased a new Intel dual-core machine with 4gb of ram and a
> 500gb hard drive.
>
> Now I'm trying to install F8/x86_64 on it, and the installer is running
> amazingly slowly. It took about ten minutes before the initial graphical
> screen showed up, and things have been running amazingly slowly ever since. It
> has been running for about 90 minutes now and I've just finished answering the
> questions, the disk has finally formatted and I have now arrived at the
> "Starting install process. This may take several minutes" screen. I guess that
> means this will finish installing but at this rate it may take all night.
>
> What's holding up the parade?

I had a similar problem when F8 first came out and I tried to load it on an HP 7700dc (I think) machine. It wasn't just slow loading either. When the load was finished, the computer ran so slowly as to be useless. The thread was called something like "really, really slow computer"

It turned out the problem was a comboination of the kernel and the BIOS. I needed at least a 2.6.22 kernel and a 2.0 BIOS.

See if you can upgrade your BIOS.

Steve.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 05:50 PM
Frank Cox
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0000
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > Now I'm trying to install F8/x86_64 on it, and the installer is running
> > amazingly slowly. It took about ten minutes before the initial graphical
>
> Probably wrong memory caching in the BIOS. That's a common cause of those
> symptoms. If so boot with mem=2G or be patient and once you've got it
> installed take a look at /proc/mtrr and that will show which memory the
> system marked as cached. If its wrong then you can tweak the settings
> and/or beat up the BIOS vendor


You have definitely hit the nail on the head.

Booting with mem=2G makes this computer perform like it should.

This is an Intel DG33FB motherboard and I downloaded the latest bios, version
0372 dated January 29. Unfortunately, that didn't solve the problem. Booting
"normally" runs at the snail's pace that I previously mentioned.

Booting with mem=2G works fine, as I said.

The contents of /proc/mtrr when this machine is booted with mem=2G are as
follows:

reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x80000000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02: base=0xc0000000 (3072MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
reg03: base=0xcf800000 (3320MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1
reg04: base=0xcf400000 (3316MB), size= 4MB: uncachable, count=1
reg05: base=0x100000000 (4096MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1
reg06: base=0x120000000 (4608MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1
reg07: base=0xd0000000 (3328MB), size= 256MB: write-combining, count=1

I looked in the bios setup and didn't see anything that obviously appeared to
be a method for telling the machine how to handle memory caching. On the other
hand, I have no idea what I'm looking for so that setting may be staring me
right in the face and I'm not recognizing it.

So.... what should my next step be?


--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 08:09 PM
Bill Davidsen
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

Da Rock wrote:


----------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0000
From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
To: fedora-list@redhat.com
CC:
Subject: Re: slow (s-l-o-w) install



Now I'm trying to install F8/x86_64 on it, and the installer is running
amazingly slowly. It took about ten minutes before the initial graphical

Probably wrong memory caching in the BIOS. That's a common cause of those
symptoms. If so boot with mem=2G or be patient and once you've got it
installed take a look at /proc/mtrr and that will show which memory the
system marked as cached. If its wrong then you can tweak the settings
and/or beat up the BIOS vendor

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list



Is this a known fault? Is it documented? If so it may have saved me a lot of diagnostics...

It's a known limitation of some BIOS versions. I suspect it would happen
with that other O/S as well, actually.


--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 08:13 PM
Frank Cox
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:09:28 -0500
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:

> It's a known limitation of some BIOS versions. I suspect it would happen
> with that other O/S as well, actually.

Is there any way to deal with it, other than telling the machine to use 2GB of
ram or less? I would like to use all 4GB, if I can.

I have already updated the bios to the latest version available, dated January
29.

--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-16-2008, 08:31 PM
Frank Cox
 
Default slow (s-l-o-w) install

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:09:28 -0500
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:

> It's a known limitation of some BIOS versions. I suspect it would happen
> with that other O/S as well, actually.

After doing some Google-research, I think I have a bit of an understanding of
this issue. Someone who knows more about this, please correct me where my
understanding is wrong.

Here is the contents of /proc/mtrr on the computer in question:

reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x80000000 (2048MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1
reg02: base=0xc0000000 (3072MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1
reg03: base=0xcf800000 (3320MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1
reg04: base=0xcf400000 (3316MB), size= 4MB: uncachable, count=1
reg05: base=0x100000000 (4096MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1
reg06: base=0x120000000 (4608MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1
reg07: base=0xd0000000 (3328MB), size= 256MB: write-combining, count=1

Now, it's my understanding that somehow, there is 64mb of ram that is not
properly accounted for in the above report, and that is what causes the problem
because this 64mb of ram is right at the top of the memory and the kernel
attempts to install itself at the top of the memory. This has the effect of
dragging everything that interacts with the kernel (meaning everything, period)
down to a snail's pace.

(If someone could explain the meaning of the /proc/mtrr report, and how that
64mb problem is derived from it I would appreciate it -- I've been looking it
over and don't understand this part of it at all.)

The reason for this problem is that the bios is not correctly reporting or
accounting for the state of the last 64mb of ram in the computer.

Obviously, the best fix for this would be to get a bios that works properly in
this regard. However, would there be a second-best fix where one could
possibly tell the kernel to ignore that last 64mb of ram and use everything
else instead? As this seems to be a problem in the very latest crop of Intel
motherboards, it will likely come up quite a bit over the next while as these
boards become more common in the market.

Is there a way, perhaps, to draw this issue to Intel's attention and get it
fixed properly in the bios? I'm thinking I will bring it up up to the dealer
that I purchased this computer from -- he is an authorized Intel dealer and
perhaps will have some sort of a way to get some input back to Intel. Before I
do this, is my understanding of the problem correct and is there any other
information that should also be included here?


--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25 AM.

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