Ubuntu Lucid Running Slow

[qualtrough]

I bought a second hand Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz with 489 MB of RAM. It came with XP and a lot of software installed, and speed was not an issue, quick enough for me at least. In the last several days I changed the OS to Ubuntu Lucid, not a dual boot. I have configured Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype to run and they work well. However, things run pretty slow. Windows are slow to open and close--it is noticeably slower than the former XP OS. I have always heard that if anything Linux runs faster than Windows, so I am surprised. But, given my ability to screw things up perhaps I have done something wrong. I suppose I could upgrade the RAM, but not sure why that should be necessary if it ran fine under XP. I would certainly appreciate it if anyone can provide me with any tips/suggestions. I am otherwise very happy with Ubuntu and ease of operations, etc.

As soon as I finished this post I went in to Open Office Write and it crashed! Bummer. I also had the mouse icon freeze earlier, so I had to restart. I was hoping that I would be leaving that kind of thing behind when I went to Linux

Edited August 10, 2010 by qualtrough

[sulasno]

IIRC 256 Mb of RAM is sufficient to run the Pengiun

[qualtrough]

Unless I am mistaken, RAM should not be the issue here. Getting bummed because it is just slow. I have restarted but still the same. Windows open and close slowly. Pages unfold slowly, etc. Anybody, Anybody? Bueller?

[qualtrough]

Here is a Noob update. When I run the System Monitor is shows CPU1 running at avg. 50%, and CPU2 at 100%. Why does it show two CPUs? This was a clean install, no other OS is operating.

[siamect]

Here is a Noob update. When I run the System Monitor is shows CPU1 running at avg. 50%, and CPU2 at 100%. Why does it show two CPUs? This was a clean install, no other OS is operating.

Either you have a dual core or a multi threaded CPU.

What processes is it that takes the CPU?

Do you have any fancy eyecandy on?

[qualtrough]

Here is a Noob update. When I run the System Monitor is shows CPU1 running at avg. 50%, and CPU2 at 100%. Why does it show two CPUs? This was a clean install, no other OS is operating.

Either you have a dual core or a multi threaded CPU.

What processes is it that takes the CPU?

Do you have any fancy eyecandy on?

The only things I have been running are the Open Office programs, mostly write, Firefox, and Thunderbird. Everything is just slow, things often come to a halt. Right now the system monitor shows low percentage use of both CPUS, but when things crawl they can both approach 100%. Memory is never more than 1/2 of the 489 available.

[qualtrough]

OK, it is the day after I wrote about the slowness issue. Today I have been using Open Office Writer and Calc, GIMP, Thunderbird, and Firefox, and speed has not been an issue. When I check the System Monitor both CPUs ranges from 10-20%. I don't understand what was going on last night since I rebooted several times and am not aware of running any resource-draining programs. At that time CPU2 indicated 100% and the CPU1 are often 80% or more, which I assume is why things were so glacial. If anyone has any ideas of what may have happened or what to check for I would appreciate that.

[qualtrough]

Update that may or may not be relevant. I notice that when I send an email message the CPU1 use stats jump almost to 100%, while CPU2 is about half that. Same thing observed when opening new web pages!

[dave_boo]

Often times you can open 'top' in a terminal and it will show you what's eating up your cpu cycles. Was your disk trashing during this time (could you see the hdd light blinking at you)?

I do know that beagled (an indexing service) is (was?) ran by default. If you're 1/2 way organised you'll never use it and are safe disabling it; perhaps that was part of the reason you were having the performance hit?

[qualtrough]

I used the top command in terminal to get this. Does this show anything that might account for the high CPU usage?

top - 16:33:48 up 15:27, 2 users, load average: 0.85, 1.00, 1.09

Tasks: 158 total, 1 running, 157 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie

Cpu(s): 8.5%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 90.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st

Mem: 501064k total, 479472k used, 21592k free, 6140k buffers

Swap: 1466360k total, 156888k used, 1309472k free, 172672k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND

10359 qualtrou 20 0 48624 10m 7068 S 10 2.0 18:06.08 gnome-system-mo

905 root 20 0 70848 15m 5100 S 7 3.1 41:28.00 Xorg

11068 qualtrou 20 0 115m 16m 4772 S 1 3.3 0:28.50 plugin-containe

11794 qualtrou 20 0 49480 12m 9868 S 1 2.5 0:01.86 gnome-terminal

11813 qualtrou 20 0 2544 1204 904 R 1 0.2 0:00.27 top

1418 qualtrou 20 0 128m 15m 5768 S 0 3.2 1:04.19 nautilus

11572 qualtrou 20 0 249m 28m 8040 S 0 5.8 0:13.04 soffice.bin

1 root 20 0 2804 632 360 S 0 0.1 0:00.57 init

2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd

3 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.01 migration/0

4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.10 ksoftirqd/0

5 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0

6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/1

7 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.54 ksoftirqd/1

8 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/1

9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 events/0

10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.51 events/1

[qualtrough]

Hi Dave,

I don't see that Beagle is installed on my list of installed software. Thanks for your assistance!

Seems weird that despite having 3.0 Ghz I am often running 90% when running a video or doing some task.

Edited August 11, 2010 by qualtrough

[dave_boo]

I used the top command in terminal to get this. Does this show anything that might account for the high CPU usage?

top - 16:33:48 up 15:27, 2 users, load average: 0.85, 1.00, 1.09

Tasks: 158 total, 1 running, 157 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie

Cpu(s): 8.5%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 90.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st

Mem: 501064k total, 479472k used, 21592k free, 6140k buffers

Swap: 1466360k total, 156888k used, 1309472k free, 172672k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND

10359 qualtrou 20 0 48624 10m 7068 S 10 2.0 18:06.08 gnome-system-mo

905 root 20 0 70848 15m 5100 S 7 3.1 41:28.00 Xorg

11068 qualtrou 20 0 115m 16m 4772 S 1 3.3 0:28.50 plugin-containe

11794 qualtrou 20 0 49480 12m 9868 S 1 2.5 0:01.86 gnome-terminal

11813 qualtrou 20 0 2544 1204 904 R 1 0.2 0:00.27 top

1418 qualtrou 20 0 128m 15m 5768 S 0 3.2 1:04.19 nautilus

11572 qualtrou 20 0 249m 28m 8040 S 0 5.8 0:13.04 soffice.bin

1 root 20 0 2804 632 360 S 0 0.1 0:00.57 init

2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd

3 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.01 migration/0

4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.10 ksoftirqd/0

5 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0

6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/1

7 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.54 ksoftirqd/1

8 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/1

9 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 events/0

10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.51 events/1

First thing that caught my eye was the process with an id of 11068 (plugin-containe obviously it was truncated). A lightbulb flashed and I remembered something about old firefox plugins screwing with newer versions of firefox. Obviously you can either use Opera, Chrome, or whatever (even going back to an older version of firefox) or keep disabling plugins until you find the offending one.....here's a link from the forums to explain a little bit better.

[qualtrough]

Thanks Dave, I will explore that further and report back!

[qualtrough]

I just installed Opera and removed Firefox. CPU and memory demand is definitely. Will test drive this some more, thanks!

[dave_boo]

I just installed Opera and removed Firefox. CPU and memory demand is definitely. Will test drive this some more, thanks!

I'm glad to hear that. I usually recommend the SuSE and Opera combo for speed (even though SuSE does same-same as Ubuntu and ships with Firefox as the default browser). After you get used to Opera I'm sure you'll like it.

[siamect]

I know that some of the more fancy desktop effects that require rendering can be quite heavy on memory... or more slow if you don't have enough... guess it depend on your graphics adapter.

Especially the first versions on KDE4 could be slow... it is tons faster now.

I your case you probably have GNOME. Compiz. is doing the desktop effects for you....

Try to disable this and see if it is better.

Martin

Edited August 11, 2010 by siamect

[BugJackBaron]

Another alternative to firefox is Chrome(called chromium in linux) from Google. Fast and simple.

If you really love firefox but don't need those extensions(a bad extension can cause cpu spiking) try firefox 4 beta in the repos, It's faster than 3 and

is not compatible with extensions yet..

Edited August 11, 2010 by BugJackBaron

[qualtrough]

I removed Firefox and installed Opera. Very happy with that, IMHO it has some superior features to firefox. I especially like the ability to scale pages easily and that speeddial looks useful. Transferring my old bookmarks was easy.

Now back to the issue at hand. I have two problems. One, OpenOffice Write is crashing all the time. I have a To Do list with bullets and that one crashes all the time. Not sure if that will happen with other docs, will need to research that. Yes, it recovers the document next time I open it, but it is very annoying. Any suggestions?

Second issue I noticed today was when working with GIMP. I had GIMPshop installed but that doesn't come out of the box with a print button and is not being updated, so I deleted and install GIMP. I found it pretty intuitive so far and am pleased, but I noticed when working with a large image today that it performed slowly. Is that related to the 512K of RAM I have? I will probably bump that up, but would like to know if there might be another issue that causes that.

I really like the Ubunu features and layout, so assuming I get all the bugs out I will be very pleased.

[qualtrough]

I know that some of the more fancy desktop effects that require rendering can be quite heavy on memory... or more slow if you don't have enough... guess it depend on your graphics adapter.

Especially the first versions on KDE4 could be slow... it is tons faster now.

I your case you probably have GNOME. Compiz. is doing the desktop effects for you....

Try to disable this and see if it is better.

Martin

Hi Martin. Thanks for your advice. Remember, you are talking to a real Linux noob here. How would I go about disabling that? I did see three options for desktop effects and I opted for no visual effects.

[qualtrough]

Here are more details about Write crashing when I add something to my To Do list document. I review my mail and then when I find something I need to do I go to my To Do list to add to it. About the second or third time I go between my mail client (Thunderbird) and the list, Write crashes. I have had nothing else crash like that. I am going to copy, paste, and resave that under another name just to rule in or out this being due to that particular document. It was a conversion from Word, so who knows?

Edited August 12, 2010 by qualtrough

[siamect]

I know that some of the more fancy desktop effects that require rendering can be quite heavy on memory... or more slow if you don't have enough... guess it depend on your graphics adapter.

Especially the first versions on KDE4 could be slow... it is tons faster now.

I your case you probably have GNOME. Compiz. is doing the desktop effects for you....

Try to disable this and see if it is better.

Martin

Hi Martin. Thanks for your advice. Remember, you are talking to a real Linux noob here. How would I go about disabling that? I did see three options for desktop effects and I opted for no visual effects.

I would if I could, but I'm not running GNOME that is default in Ubuntu.... So I don't have anything machine to test with.

What worries me more are all your crashing things...

I'm running GNU/Linux on 3 computers at home and about 10 at work. The only crashes I have had the last years are due to a faulty RAM in one case (firefox crashed when playing some online game) and when I tried to do some web table import in Open Office about a year ago. It was corrected by an update after sometime and has never happened again.

Maybe you should try to run the memtst86, you can choose it when the computer boots up. It will test your RAM without any OS running. Another one is called GSmartControl. It is checking your drives for errors... you can install it from the package manager...

Martin

Edited August 12, 2010 by siamect

[qualtrough]

I know that some of the more fancy desktop effects that require rendering can be quite heavy on memory... or more slow if you don't have enough... guess it depend on your graphics adapter.

Especially the first versions on KDE4 could be slow... it is tons faster now.

I your case you probably have GNOME. Compiz. is doing the desktop effects for you....

Try to disable this and see if it is better.

Martin

Hi Martin. Thanks for your advice. Remember, you are talking to a real Linux noob here. How would I go about disabling that? I did see three options for desktop effects and I opted for no visual effects.

I would if I could, but I'm not running GNOME that is default in Ubuntu.... So I don't have anything machine to test with.

What worries me more are all your crashing things...

I'm running GNU/Linux on 3 computers at home and about 10 at work. The only crashes I have had the last years are due to a faulty RAM in one case (firefox crashed when playing some online game) and when I tried to do some web table import in Open Office about a year ago. It was corrected by an update after sometime and has never happened again.

Maybe you should try to run the memtst86, you can choose it when the computer boots up. It will test your RAM without any OS running. Another one is called GSmartControl. It is checking your drives for errors... you can install it from the package manager...

Martin

I checked the hard disk and it says it passed, but has 3 bad sectors. I will check on doing the memst86 now. Write crashes regularly and this system just does not have the speed it should. The same computer with XP run running fast and was loaded with games, etc., so I would expect to be running even faster and of course no crashes. Color me bummed.

[qualtrough]

I finally threw in the towel trying to get to the bottom of this problem. I don't know if there was a problem with the computer or if I did something wrong, but it was beyond my ability to deal with. I didn't give up on Linux. I went out and bought a second hand core 2 with 1 gig of RAM and put a new 300 gig hard drive in that. I did a dual boot with Ubuntu and it went smoothly. I am now up and running and it is great. Really loving Opera, which I think beats FF hands down. CPU usage is way low. I plan on reinstalling Ubuntu in the old one and see if it goes better this time. That one will a spare. Thanks again for all the advice.

[siamect]

I finally threw in the towel trying to get to the bottom of this problem. I don't know if there was a problem with the computer or if I did something wrong, but it was beyond my ability to deal with. I didn't give up on Linux. I went out and bought a second hand core 2 with 1 gig of RAM and put a new 300 gig hard drive in that. I did a dual boot with Ubuntu and it went smoothly. I am now up and running and it is great. Really loving Opera, which I think beats FF hands down. CPU usage is way low. I plan on reinstalling Ubuntu in the old one and see if it goes better this time. That one will a spare. Thanks again for all the advice.

Great! One more saved soul