Re: AMD 64 on HP laptop
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 07:18:08AM -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
> hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:16:21PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 13:09:55 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have a HP Pavilion dv8000z laptop with a 2.0 ghz AMD Turion, a gig of
> >>>ram, and dual 80 gig hard drives.
> >>>
> >>>I have tried to install the AMD 64 version of Sarge twice on this
> >>>machine. Both times it has been so slow I've given up and installed the
> >>>32 bit version of Sarge. I just did, or should say attempted, an 64 bit
> >>>install today. It took 55 minutes to do a base install from a
> >>>netinstall cd, 10 minutes of which it spent on just loading the
> >>>kernel-image package. I can complete a default 32 bit Sarge desktop
> >>>install in approximately the same amount of time.
> >>>
> >>>I started my install at 11:15 this morning, it is now 12:59, and the
> >>>system is just now unpacking the downloads for a default desktop
> >>>install. That's 1 3/4 hours and it hasn't even begun setting up
> >>>packages yet. This install will probably take at least 3 hours to
> >>>complete, if not more.
> >>>
> >>>Anyone know why this is so slow? I would have completed the same
> >>>default desktop bit install an hour ago on this machine if I had
> >>>installed the 32 bit version of Sarge. Running 32 bit sarge or sid this
> >>>laptop is every bit the equal of my 32 bit desktop machines of similar
> >>>cpu speed even though it only has 4200 rpm hard drives and my desktops
> >>>have 7200 rpm hard drives.
> >>>
> >>>The 64 bit version of Debian makes this thing crawl. It takes at least
> >>>8 - 10 seconds to open Firefox. The 32 bit install opens Firefox in
> >>>less than 1/2 the time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Maybe the 64 bit install has a problem with DMA; that can cost you a
> >>factor 10 in harddrive access times. You can check this with "hdparm".
> >>
> >>--
> >>Regards,
> >> Florian
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I had trouble with extreme sloth of an AMD64 install; using an
> >installer with a more recent kernel seemed to improve things.
> >I don't know what the problem was. With the slow installer I never got
> >as far as running the system, though. God it was *slow*!
> >
> >-- hendrik
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hendrik,
>
> I tried etch the first time I tried a pure 64 bit installation. I
> didn't have any better luck with it than I did with sarge. Glad to
> know it isn't just my machine that has problems with this though. Just
> out of curiosity, what kernel did you use that worked?
>
The one in Len Sorenson's netinstall disk.
hendrik@april:~$ ls /boot
boot.0200 initrd.img-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic
boot.0300 map
coffee.bmp sarge.bmp
config-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic sid.bmp
debian.bmp System.map-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic
debianlilo.bmp vmlinuz-2.6.12-1-amd64-generic
grub
hendrik@april:~$
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: