Re: Etch becoming slower than Sarge? [ RAM recognition solved ]

[Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com>]

andy wrote:
> andy wrote:
> > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:45:40 +0000
> > > andy <geek_show@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >   
> > > > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:18:27 +0000
> > > > > andy <geek_show@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >   
> > > > >       
> > > > > > > > Although the man page will identify as a bug that the info in
> > > > > > > > dmidecode can be completely wrong (!), this does show that I have
> > > > > > > > 1024MB of RAM - i.e. 1GB. So, somewhere betwixt BIOS and fired up
> > > > > > > > Etch I have lost recognition for 250MB-odd of memory.
> > > > > > > >         
> > > > > > > >             
> > > > >   
> > > > >       
> > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. On a note that might be related, I have
> > > > > > just watched an *.avi video from the hard-drive using Totem and was
> > > > > > drawing 100% CPU, with 42% of memory in cache. Perhaps this is
> > > > > > normal ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My only strange experiences with Etch thus far are:
> > > > > > * not having the full 1 GB stick recognised,
> > > > > > * the heavy use of CPU,
> > > > > > * the overflow into swap, and
> > > > > > * the occasional hard freeze when burning DVDs after converting
> > > > > > them from non-DVD formats
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps these issues are related? Could I have a bad stick of RAM?
> > > > > > Is it software? Will the Knoppix and memtest86 CDs you mention
> > > > > > help sort out which is which?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >         
> > > > > You still didn't answer any questions about the video card. Maybe
> > > > > you have an on-board chipset with shared mem?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Andrei
> > > > >   
> > > > >       
> > > > Sorry Andrei, that e-mail must have slipped past my radar. The
> > > > graphics card is 128MB ATI Radeon X200 Express Graphics built-in. I
> > > > think that it is a 32-bit and that memory is prefetchable
> > > > [size=256MB]. If this means that it shares memory from the RAM chip,
> > > > then yes, this would account for the missing RAM.
> > > >
> > > > A
> > > >     
> > >
> > > AFAIK prefetchable means something else, but if the chip is built-in it
> > > might use shared memory. Just look through the bios settings, the
> > > amount of shared memory is usually configurable.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andrei
> > >   
> > OK - next reboot I'll look through the BIOS settings. I would be 
> > looking to reduce the amount of shared memory, but by how much? I am 
> > assuming that disabling or reducing it to 0 would negatively impact on 
> > performance?
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > A
> Andrei & Geoff (& others)
>
> Thanks for your help on this - following Andrei's suggestion I reduced 
> the shared memory to 32MB. I had it set to 256MB (i.e. the "missing" 
> block) in the BIOS. 1024MB RAM are recognised at boot, and 980MB is 
> identified once I've booted into the system and logged into my profile. 
> I have about 2.8GB swap free as well. I'll have to try Oolite again to 
> see how it functions this time with a "revamped" system!! :D
>
> Thanks all.
>
> A

That swap space is huge. I use the kernel patches of Con Kolivas,
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/kernel/

He has done a lot on swap usage, and he recommends about 256MB and says 
that it is unrelated to the amount of ram you have.

He has a special function called "swap prefetch" that make swapping easier.

Of course at the moment I can't find the post where he made the 256MB 
comment.

Hugo