Slowaris 7

Slowaris 7

Post by John Sconier » Sat, 26 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> How much memory does Solaris 7 need to run "nicely". On my system, Solaris
> uses the hard drive constantly. I've got 32 megs of RAM, which I know is not
> a lot anymore. At the risk of being flamed, I should note that Linux runs
> great on the system with 32 megs of ram. The system has a K6 266 processor.

I have a 400mhz with 128 MB of ram and SCSI hard drives and it runs pretty
well.  I was once told the hard drive thrashes becauses of the swapping
algorithm...it assumes you have SCSI/ Fibre Channel hardware capable of
multiple reads and writes at once.  To answer your question.  I used to
run x86 on a pentium 266 mith 128MB of ram and a 2gig UW SCSI hard drive
and it preformed pretty well....still not as well as other free unixes BUT
the hard drive thrashing was significantly lower.

Quote:> As far as I can tell, the HotJava browser was the memory hog since it was
> very painful to use. Once it fully loaded an ab page it was snappy, but to
> get it to load was very impractical.
> Eduardo Cavazos

JOHN
 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Robert Yode » Sat, 26 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> How much memory does Solaris 7 need to run "nicely". On my system, Solaris
> uses the hard drive constantly. I've got 32 megs of RAM, which I know is not
> a lot anymore. At the risk of being flamed, I should note that Linux runs
> great on the system with 32 megs of ram. The system has a K6 266 processor.

> As far as I can tell, the HotJava browser was the memory hog since it was
> very painful to use. Once it fully loaded an ab page it was snappy, but to
> get it to load was very impractical.

My experience:
32M: Pages constantly.
64M: Runs happily.

I've heard that 48M runs OK, but never tried it.

And yes, I found that Linux and FreeBSD
were much happier than Solaris with 32M.

ry
--

"Unix:  The Solution to the W2K Problem."

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Dave Ba » Tue, 29 Dec 1998 04:00:00



>How much memory does Solaris 7 need to run "nicely". On my system, Solaris
>uses the hard drive constantly. I've got 32 megs of RAM, which I know is not
>a lot anymore. At the risk of being flamed, I should note that Linux runs
>great on the system with 32 megs of ram. The system has a K6 266 processor.

I run Linux at home on a P200 with 32MB.  It's about as slow as a similar
SPARC/Solaris box.

In my case I run KDE, which is about as much of a memory hog as CDE.

The problem is not the OS -- it's the apps you run on top of it.

If you think HotJava's a memory hog, then don't run it!  Don't blame
Solaris.  If you ported HotJava to Linux it would be just as slow.

--Dave
--
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~barr/

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Philip Bro » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00



>...
>As far as I can tell, the HotJava browser was the memory hog since it was
>very painful to use. Once it fully loaded an ab page it was snappy, but to
>get it to load was very impractical.

you're running into two problems:

#1: Solaris likes 48 megs ram for a GUI system, at least

#2: hotjava is a pig. Dump it.

--
[trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
 --------------------------------------------------
"initiating.. 'getting the hell out of here' maneouver" - Lennier, babylon5

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by John Sconier » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> I run Linux at home on a P200 with 32MB.  It's about as slow as a similar
> SPARC/Solaris box.
> In my case I run KDE, which is about as much of a memory hog as CDE.
> The problem is not the OS -- it's the apps you run on top of it.
> If you think HotJava's a memory hog, then don't run it!  Don't blame
> Solaris.  If you ported HotJava to Linux it would be just as slow.

I don't believe thats true.  I have two identical 400Mhz machine.  One
runs Solaris the other runs freebsd.  They run simular apps (web, ftp,
bind, sendmail, and a few shell accounts)I am still able to use the the
GUI on the FreeBSD box (given fvwm is not a hog compared to kde/cde) but
on the solaris box it takes for ever to do some of the same tasks.

I have very light linux experience however I've **HEARD** Linux
performance is better even more so on x86 boxes.

JOHN

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Bryan Althau » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00


:> I run Linux at home on a P200 with 32MB.  It's about as slow as a similar
:> SPARC/Solaris box.
:> In my case I run KDE, which is about as much of a memory hog as CDE.
:> The problem is not the OS -- it's the apps you run on top of it.
:> If you think HotJava's a memory hog, then don't run it!  Don't blame
:> Solaris.  If you ported HotJava to Linux it would be just as slow.

: I don't believe thats true.  I have two identical 400Mhz machine.  One
: runs Solaris the other runs freebsd.  They run simular apps (web, ftp,
: bind, sendmail, and a few shell accounts)I am still able to use the the
: GUI on the FreeBSD box (given fvwm is not a hog compared to kde/cde) but
: on the solaris box it takes for ever to do some of the same tasks.

Talk about vague.  What version of Solaris?  Are the latest recommended
kernel patches installed?  Did you turn on priority_paging in /etc/system?

When you run fvwm on Solaris is it better?

These apples and oranges comparions are getting old, especially since I've
been hearing this since Solaris 2.4.

Please, if you're getting bad performance out of a machine with 400MHz and
a decent amount of memory then somethings wrong - and I don't think it's
the OS.

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by John Sconier » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> : I don't believe thats true.  I have two identical 400Mhz machine.  One
> : runs Solaris the other runs freebsd.  They run simular apps (web, ftp,
> : bind, sendmail, and a few shell accounts)I am still able to use the the
> : GUI on the FreeBSD box (given fvwm is not a hog compared to kde/cde) but
> : on the solaris box it takes for ever to do some of the same tasks.
> Talk about vague.  What version of Solaris?  Are the latest recommended
> kernel patches installed?  Did you turn on priority_paging in /etc/system?

Solaris Server 2.6 with the latest patches.  priority paging is on.  Both
systems have 384MB of ram.  The solaris box has about 25 shell accounts
mostly developers using the workshop.  FreeBSD has about 50 using GCC,
perl, etc.  They're mostly exporting the Display back to they're Desktop
from both using exceed (pcxserver)....each machine does internal mail and
ip routing as well as a few databases and project/staff websites.  No I'm
not using Xfree86 on the Freebsd box..we're running accelerated X.  while
the Solaris box is running the default (xsun?) xserver.  Both have an
Intel Pro 100 card are on a 100MB switched hub that.  That developers
hubs (non-switched 100M) get plugged into the switched hub.

Under these conditions FreeBSD holds up alot better than the Solaris
machine and is possible to bring up the actual console if I ever needed
too while Solaris is alot slower.  Also I can simulate more database and
web hits on the Freebsd box than the Solaris box.  

Quote:> These apples and oranges comparions are getting old, especially since I've
> been hearing this since Solaris 2.4.

Get a PC.  Install Freebsd and run iot next to an almost identical solaris
x86 box (of course the xserver and WM is different but I hoe thats not the
reason Solaris is slower) and I gaurantee you'll see the difference.  Keep
in mind both systems were optimized for each OS.

Quote:> Please, if you're getting bad performance out of a machine with 400MHz and
> a decent amount of memory then somethings wrong - and I don't think it's
> the OS.

I beg to differ.  I think the major difference as I said before earlier in
the post is that Solaris is built for better hardware and developed for
two platforms where as FreeBSD and other OS' are almost strictly X86,
Alpha and right the code based on that type of system.  You can tell this
by looking at the way Solaris handles things versus other OS'

JOHN

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Don Clayto » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> Solaris Server 2.6 with the latest patches.  priority paging is on.  Both
> systems have 384MB of ram.  The solaris box has about 25 shell accounts
> mostly developers using the workshop.  FreeBSD has about 50 using GCC,

                              ^^^^^^^^                              ^^^

This is your problem.  Workshop is a very big environment and gcc is a
compiler.  Workshop users probably use 10 times the memory of the gcc
users.

You're not comparing apples to oranges.

I'm developing the same application on the same box under both Linux (I
know, not freebsd) and Solaris, and I don't notice any big differences
in performance.

Don

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Alan L. Stang » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> I have two 166Mhz Pentiums at work with 80MB and 96MB of RAM, one runs
> Red Hat Linux 5.1(80MB) and the other Solaris 7(96MB).  I cannot tell any real
> difference between the two even though Linux is using FVWM and Solaris
> CDE.  There is no doubt that Solaris requires more RAM.
> Using the new memtool app, prtmem shows on our 400Mhz PII running
> Solaris (full install, networked, running web server, data ingestion)
> shows fully 22MB of RAM used by kernel memory.  If you only have
> 32MB to start with, there won't be much left over for CDE.
> My experience tells me that to get about the same performance,
> Solaris requires 16, maybe 32MB more RAM.  For me, a small price to pay
> as I much prefer Solaris.

It should be emphasized that this doesn't mean that the kernel needs at least
22MB of RAM.  The kernel memory consumption varies depending on the amount of
memory, workload, etc....

We have systems with kernel memory consumption ranging from about 10MB to over
1GB(!).  This latter example is pathological and is related to some things the
system is doing...

--

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Bryan Althau » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00


:>
:> Solaris Server 2.6 with the latest patches.  priority paging is on.  Both
:> systems have 384MB of ram.  The solaris box has about 25 shell accounts
:> mostly developers using the workshop.  FreeBSD has about 50 using GCC,
:                               ^^^^^^^^                             ^^^

: This is your problem.  Workshop is a very big environment and gcc is a
: compiler.  Workshop users probably use 10 times the memory of the gcc
: users.

 This is what I mean about these meaningless comparisons.   50 Workshop
sessions where you can load up a GUI de*, source analyzer, source
browser, graph source, teamware SCCS, thread analyzer, loop analyzer, an app
to design GUI applications not to mention the Workshop toolbar.

All this vs. gcc.   Hell it take 15 seconds just to load Workshop up on my
Ultra1 at work.

: You're not comparing apples to oranges.

: I'm developing the same application on the same box under both Linux (I
: know, not freebsd) and Solaris, and I don't notice any big differences
: in performance.

Exactly.  And in all honesty *BSD and Linux should be a bit faster  as they
aren't aimed at the server market like Solaris and more importantly don't
have to deal with the overhead of fine grain threading/SMP like Solaris does.

Again apples to oranges.  When Linux and *BSD kernel starts to handle all
that the Solaris kernel does, then lets start doing comparisons, otherwise
why not compare the speed of DOS to Solaris?  I find DOS much faster than
any UNIX. :)

 
 
 

Slowaris 7

Post by Lance Woodso » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> I don't believe thats true.  I have two identical 400Mhz machine.  One
> runs Solaris the other runs freebsd.  They run simular apps (web, ftp,
> bind, sendmail, and a few shell accounts)I am still able to use the the
> GUI on the FreeBSD box (given fvwm is not a hog compared to kde/cde) but
> on the solaris box it takes for ever to do some of the same tasks.

> JOHN

If it is not any trouble, please open up four xterms and do a 'du /' in
each window on both machines.  Then post your comparisons for all to
see.  Thank you.