Solved

Redhat 10 Performance

Posted on 2003-12-02
11
1,654 Views
Last Modified: 2013-12-06
This is pretty much an open question.  I use slackware and Redhat.  With the market swinging to redhat I want to go back to Redhat.  My problem with Redhat is that is was so much slower for everything than Slackware.  

My Redhat 10 should arrive in the mail soon and I will install it.   How do I get it to perform like slackware on the same exact computer ?   Slackware was just installed and never tweeked at all.  

Does Recompiling your Kernel really help much?   How do I do this correctly?  I have recompiled dozens of times, never had a kernel that worked quite right.  Is there a default .config that I can start with and trim down ?

My system has a 80 gig hard drive, 850 processor and 128 megs of Ram.

0
Comment
Question by:TIMFOX123
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • +1
11 Comments
 
LVL 15

Expert Comment

by:sr75
ID: 9862711
Redhat 10?? do you mean 9 or are you talking about the Fedora core?
0
 

Author Comment

by:TIMFOX123
ID: 9863753
Ummm, It is the latest freeware.  Ordered it from "almost free linux"  days ago and am looking for it in the mail.  Lets just call it a recent copy of redhat.  

0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:TheWeakestLink
ID: 9867617
The best place to get a kernel configuration which works is on your own machine.  If you look in /boot, you should see a file like :- vmlinuz.config.  It is common practise for Linux vendors to put the configuration file they used in this location.  You can then use that for building your own kernel by using "make oldconfig".   In recent kernels, it is also often the case that the /proc directory contains the config.gz file, which gzipped configuration file for the running kernel.  You could use that as the kernel configuration file as before.

Paul
0
 

Author Comment

by:TIMFOX123
ID: 9872001
I get it!  Find a Kernel (from anybody) that supports all your stuff and then trim it down.  This answers the kernel question.  Any other performace tips ?  I will add / split the points at the end of this tread.

0
 
LVL 2

Accepted Solution

by:
TheWeakestLink earned 200 total points
ID: 9873506
Hi again,

I'd slightly modify your last reply :  Getting a kernel .config file from anybody may not be that safe - it would need to be from a very similar, preferably identical hardware setup.  If you have a running setup, the slackware or redhat configurations from your own machine would be the best place to start.  You're right about trimming it down - mass market kernels from major distros have loads of things either built in or loaded as modules.  Many of these aren't part of any given hardware setup.

As to performance, that depends on where you see the problems....

Add more RAM.    Upgrade your CPU. Use a lightweight window manager.
Use hdparm to tune hard disk I/O - see http://linux.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/linux/2000/06/29/hdparm.html

As to your point about the market swinging to RedHat; are you aware that they are getting out of the mass market business to concentrate on corparate users?  7.3, 8.0 and 9 will all be discontinued by mid next year - sooner for older versions.  You will have to go with their "fedora core" bleeding edge distros or find another supplier.  My preference is SuSE because their hardware support is just excellent, but now the've been bought by Novell, their future course as regards consumer distros is not clear at present.

Paul
0
Complete VMware vSphere® ESX(i) & Hyper-V Backup

Capture your entire system, including the host, with patented disk imaging integrated with VMware VADP / Microsoft VSS and RCT. RTOs is as low as 15 seconds with Acronis Active Restore™. You can enjoy unlimited P2V/V2V migrations from any source (even from a different hypervisor)

 

Author Comment

by:TIMFOX123
ID: 9879692
Some excelent points.  Figured I would go fedora and upgrade if needed.  Suse is pretty good.   If I have problems with fedora I can compile and install the packages that I really need (slackware style).  

Guess Free love and Free linux are now dangerous.  Do I need to pay for a Redhat or Suse "wrapper".  

I am not condeming anybody.

Oh I upped the points and than you very much.   You know your stuff.  
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:TheWeakestLink
ID: 9881431
You can download SuSE 9.0 free from their web site.  Who knows what changes Novell may make later.

Thanks for the complement - and the points!

Cheers,

Paul
0
 

Expert Comment

by:kcorbiniqg
ID: 9883923
I recently upgraded a Slackware 8 box to Fedora Core and have been elated with the peformance and ease of use.  Fedora pre-loads linker libraries so applications start *very* fast.  Also, everything is compiled for 686 processors, no 386 compatibilty on anything.  Compared to Red Hat 9, Fedora is much faster in all respects.  But then again, Red Hat 8 was much faster than 9, but it had all older packages and such.  Red Hat 9 had that stupid localization that slowed everything waaaaay down.  It seems they've fixed some of the interface annoyances with Red Hat in Fedora now too.

Looking at your specs however, I think you could benefit a great deal by simply doubling your RAM.  RAM is cheap and durable so it's always a good system investment.  I think you will find that ANY of the newer distros will run much better with the extra RAM.   Desktops like GNOME and KDE suck up a lot of memory, and anytime you have to swap memory to disk your system will crawl.

My $.02
0
 

Author Comment

by:TIMFOX123
ID: 9894158
So you recompiled Everything ?   Isn't that alot of work?  Also I think you are right about memory.  The hard disk just grinds.   I always thought 128 megs of memory was to ton of memory.  Things are a chainging.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:kcorbiniqg
ID: 9897060
No, it's already compiled for 686 optimizations.  Basically, you have to have a PII/PIII or better to run it at all.  Making everything 386 compatible slows everything down quite a bit.
0
 

Author Comment

by:TIMFOX123
ID: 9935364
I took my memory from 128 megs to 256 and the performance difference was wonderfull.  This is just a stock slackware install 9.1 with all the packages and 128 megs is not enough.  I never would have belived it.

Linux - 256 megs+ ram in the year 2003

0

Featured Post

Backup Your Microsoft Windows Server®

Backup all your Microsoft Windows Server – on-premises, in remote locations, in private and hybrid clouds. Your entire Windows Server will be backed up in one easy step with patented, block-level disk imaging. We achieve RTOs (recovery time objectives) as low as 15 seconds.

Join & Write a Comment

Suggested Solutions

This document is written for Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 and ORACLE 10g.  Earlier releases can be installed using this document as well however there are some additional steps for packages to be installed see Metalink. Disclaimer: I hav…
Introduction We as admins face situation where we need to redirect websites to another. This may be required as a part of an upgrade keeping the old URL but website should be served from new URL. This document would brief you on different ways ca…
Learn several ways to interact with files and get file information from the bash shell. ls lists the contents of a directory: Using the -a flag displays hidden files: Using the -l flag formats the output in a long list: The file command gives us mor…
Connecting to an Amazon Linux EC2 Instance from Windows Using PuTTY.

743 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

11 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now