Re: Bug#372070: Could someone try to reproduce #372070
This is reproducible and still exists.
I can confirm this with the latest kernel version and game software, furthermore my system has 1 GB of memory , the game uses up 50% but no swapping.
processor : 0
cpu : 7455, altivec supported
clock : 800.000000MHz
revision : 0.1 (pvr 8001 0201)
bogomips : 79.83
timebase : 33330863
platform : PowerMac
model : PowerBook3,4
machine : PowerBook3,4
motherboard : PowerBook3,4 MacRISC2 MacRISC Power Macintosh
detected as : 73 (PowerBook Titanium III)
pmac flags : 0000001b
L2 cache : 256K unified
pmac-generation : NewWorld
--excerpt from the original mail--
Eddy Petrișor skrev:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:28 +0200, Eddy Petrior wrote:
>>> Some time ago i have stumbled on this problem:
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=372070
>>>
>>> Having no answer from the maintainer and considering the nearing
>>> release of Etch, I have raised the severity, but it seems nobody
>>> of the people trying the game on i386 machines could reproduce
>>> the issue.
>>>
>>> So, could someone try to reproduce the issue on a ppc machine
>>> and report the result in the bug?
>> I can't reproduce the problem on a PowerBook5,8. Memory/swap thrashing
>> does indeed seem to be the most plausible explanation, but I guess it
>> could also be partly a graphics driver (configuration) issue. You should
>> probably provide a little more detail about your system setup.
>
> The graphics driver is the radeon, so I guess there is a chance this adds
> up.
>
> As I said in another mail, the machine is a PowerBook5,2 with 256MB of RAM.
Well, been long enough, time to close this bug, I guess. I'm reasonably
sure you'll need at least 512MB RAM to run Flight Gear. Don't forget
that Flight Gear comes with almost 400MB of data files, and at least
some of it is meant to be loaded into memory, in addition to what the
rest of your OS is using.
If you consider it a DoS when swap thrashing slows down your system,
then complain to linux-kernel or something instead, this is the kind of
thing they're always trying to tweak with their I/O scheduling algorithms.
Reply to: