FC2 + newest openoffice = slower

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 14:38, Edward wrote:
> Trevor Smith wrote:
> 
> > I muddled through for about half a year with FC1 on a PIII 500 with 386meg of 
> > ram and an old slow hard drive. Open Office worked but it was slooooooow to 
> > open and even the odd save of a file was slow.
> > 
> > I bought a new laptop (AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+ at 2.133GHz) with 512meg that has 
> > a newer, presumably faster hard drive. When I installed FC1, open office 
> > suddenly worked WONDERFULLY. It was fast enough that I didn't even care about 
> > startup time. Not as fast as MS Office on WinXP, of course, but fast enough 
> > to be called "fast".
> > 
> > Then I upgraded to FC2 and the newer open office that is included with that 
> > distribution. Suddenly open office was sloooooow to start up again. :-( I 
> > have updated open office and everything else a few times since then but 
> > nothing changes.
Did you try running prelink??
check /etc/prelink.conf
/etc/sysconfig/prelink

> > 20 seconds (to load the spreadsheet main window) + 4 seconds (to load the 
> > actual very plain vanilla spreadsheet I use to keep track of my budget).
10 seconds (or 15) to open. Then again, I"m running on cpuspeed of
dynamic. (600mhz)

> > 
> > This is the kind of slowness I used to see with my PIII 500! Anyone have any 
> > ideas why this is so slow, when FC1+older Open office was faster? Is it an OO 
> > issue or an FC issue? Or a kernel issue (using kernel-2.6.8-1.521)?
> 
> The only thing I can think of is to check your hdparm settings.
Yeah..

> Oh, and just because it is a new hard drive in that notebook, don't 
> assume it is faster than your desktop.
Mostof the time it won't be

>  Notebook hard drives supplied 
> with the factory notebooks are usually notoriously slow. 
Factory installed yeah. I do agree.. 
> 4500 RPM or so 
> and no cache to speak of.
Please. All HDs come with at least 2MB cache (nowadays)

> 
> You CAN get 7200RPM 8Mb cache ones now but I've never seen a notebook 
> come with one as they are more expensive.
You can get one for VERY much more expensive though..

I'm running on an Hitachi/IBM 5400rpm 80GB 8MB Cache and I get

/dev/hda:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   1284 MB in  2.00 seconds = 641.46 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  106 MB in  3.05 seconds =  34.78 MB/sec



-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 on D600 1.4Ghz CPU kernel
2.6.7-2.jul1-interactive 
Neuromancer 07:23:39 up 10:36, 6 users, load average: 0.47, 0.82, 1.05