Optimizing Ubuntu - Possible?

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by suliman, Mar 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. suliman

    suliman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    Optimizing Ubuntu - Possible? [SOLVED]

    I posted earlier about my woes when trying to install Ubuntu, but got some great help here that revealed my ignorance :)

    So here is some more:

    I have used Ubuntu through Wubi earlier and thought that it was a bit slow because of that. So I installed Ubuntu "for real" to a dedicated drive that is formatted as ext3 and expected ubuntu to be way faster than Windows.

    I let it update whatever it wanted, including latest nvidia drivers.
    But still it is not as responsive as Vista 64. Programs are lightning fast when I start them in Vista 64 and the whole experience is more responsive than in Ubuntu (64bit)
    I have the Compiz enhancement but that runs beautifully, no lag anywhere. But starting programs are a bit slow compared to Vista. Since compiz with the cube and wobbly windows and other eye candy works finen, no complaints there, but not the program starts. My layman guess it has something to do with hard drive access?

    Is there anything I can do to make it as responsive as Vista? Change filesystem to one of the others? Or is it Ubuntu specific? maybe another distro will make better use of the hardware I got?

    Antoher question: Ubuntu has Firefox built into the distro, is it better for some reason to install a clean Firefox instead? I feel that the built in is a bit slow (again compared to Vista) when surfing around.

    I have Pentium Core 2 Duo @2.89Mhz
    Asus PK5 motherboard
    4GB Kingston RAM
    Ubuntu is installed on a Seagate SATA2 160GB ext3 filesystem.
    Nvidia Radeon 8800 350MB DD3
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  2. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,701
    Hello,

    Don't change Firefox, keep the default. As to slowness, maybe you need to optimize the MTU in networking settings. Make some download/upload speed tests, see if they scale to what you have on Vista. In general Linux is faster and more responsive when it comes to network.

    As to speed, I really can't say what you got. I found Linux to be faster than comparable Windows. Did you allocate enough space on its partition? How much ram do you have?

    Let it run for a while, see what gives.

    Mrk
     
  3. suliman

    suliman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    Thanks Mrkvonic.

    I have 4GB RAM. Ubuntu is on a dedicated 160GB drive and if I remember right it partitoned a 4% swapfile partition on that drive during install.
    I am sure Ubuntu are supposed to be faster than what I got. I will run it for a while and see what happens. I have done some online tests and there is no problem in the internet speed, I get the same speed as in Vista when downloading. It feels like it is more the rendering of pages in Firefox that feels slower, the just doesnt load as fast. But hey, it is maybe a half of a second or so slower so it is not the end of the world, but if there is a way to optimize I wouldnt mind :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  4. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    im confused since on my machine ubuntu was alot faster than vista home premium 64bit.
    fedora which i currently dual boot is also alot faster than vista 64bit.
    i only have 2gb of ram.
     
  5. SpikeyB

    SpikeyB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    478
    I've run 64 bit Dapper and 32 bit Intrepid and found both of them to be slower than XP and similar to Vista with 1GB ram.

    I've tried quite a few of the supposed speed tweaks from the Ubuntu forums and not found any that really help.
     
  6. FastGame

    FastGame Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Posts:
    677
    Location:
    Blasters worm farm
    Slow Linux Firefox Here and Here

    I don't know how fast Ubuntu is compaired to Vista, I know its not as fast as my XP :eek:

    That said, its not much slower and wouldn't keep me from using Ubuntu.
     
  7. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    For me, Ubuntu x64 is overall quicker and snappier than Vista x64 was/is. Vista is ok, but with time it slows down a bit. Also, choice of AV makes quite a bit of difference in overall performance on Vista. But my experience gives the nod to Ubuntu x64 here. Not sure why Vista seems faster on yours. Also, Ubuntu x64 is about as fast as XP x64 here.
     
  8. suliman

    suliman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    Thanks for the links, that might be why I feel FF is slower in Ubuntu.
    Wonder if noscript would help, I have always used it to filter out all the unnessesary scripts that bloats nearly every darn page nowdays... Now that I think of it I didnt install noscript in FF Ubuntu...When I think even more I realize that I use adblock instead of hostsman in Ubuntu, that is probably another reason, adblock has never been my favourite to filter out ads since I discovered hostsman...Will try correct those later (boted into vista right now).
    Tweaking goes on :)

    Cheers
     
  9. lewmur

    lewmur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    332
    The whole point is, you are comparing apples and oranges. You aren't using the same app in Linux that you are using in Win, so saying one is faster than the other is moronic. But here is a fact. Boot Ubuntu, and open OO. Then boot XP and open Word. Now exit both OO and Word. Now open ANOTHER document in each. OO will fly in this instance compared to Word.

    The point is, you have to know what you are comparing to make this kind of judgment. Nine times out of ten, your "benchmark" will be worthless unless you are an expert in BOTH systems.
     
  10. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Every app that I use on my Intrepid x64 is way quicker than it was with XPx64 which in turn was quicker than Vista x64.

    Your culprit here could be the nvidia drivers you installed from the repos, I suggest you remove them and install the drivers from nvidia site. There are two ways you can install them, one is via the installer script provided by nvidia, other way is through Alberto Milone's excellent Envy which does everything on its own, it boots you out of gui and then removes any existing drivers, auto detects your card and downloads latest drivers from the manufacturer's site and sets them up. Then it brings you back into gui.

    With my dual quads, I can parallel encode four mp3s at once using x64 Encoder and codecs, this still leaves me enough CPU to do other work, this is not possible in Windows. Everything else, from launch and execution is way faster in Linux.
     
  11. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    Yeah, Arup, on 2nd thought, I do think Ubuntu x64 beats XP x64 after all, generally speaking. XP was most noticeably quicker than Vista also. Things like file copy, app installing, and on and on, just no contest.
     
  12. suliman

    suliman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    Thanks for your suggestion Arup. I will try that too.

    *edit* me starting to rant again so I shortened it to avoid topic to be lost.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  13. suliman

    suliman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    Re: Optimizing Ubuntu - Possible? [Solved]

    I have now played around a bit. I changed the nvidia drivers as suggested. I took away animations in Compiz that didnt really slow down anything but gave me an impression of it, obviously because windows animations by nature actually takes time :oops:
    Changed fonts in FF to more pleasant ones (nothing to do with speed though)

    Even though I still feel that pages in FF still loads some tenths of a second slower but I guess that has to do with that I haven't modified the hosts file like in Windows. But it can as easily be my imagination so I wont be bothered by that. (yeah, I'm finicky, what the heck, lets say it loud: I'm a nerd:) )

    All is fine and I have a pleasant Ubuntu experience now, thanks to your suggestions to where to look.

    Thanks again.
     
  14. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Re: Optimizing Ubuntu - Possible? [Solved]

    suliman,

    Check out the Ubuntu forums, specially the tutorials and you are gonna have fun like never before, the fact that you have taken the step into Ubuntu goes to show your interest and it can only grow from there.
     
  15. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    I must say, suliman, you have done pretty well figuring out compiz cube etc.
    so soon - much quicker than I did.

    Re. Speed.. maybe like me you have Vista on a faster Hdd. I am running XP
    on a 10000rpm Raptor drive and Ubuntu 8.04.2 LTS on a slower 7200 rpm SATA
    Seagate. There is a difference in speed but only really noticeable when
    running 'heavy duty' tasks. I find Opera faster than FF in Ubuntu ( and much
    faster than IE in XP ).
    Regards.
     
  16. suliman

    suliman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    Arup, it sure is growing.
    I have been using Ubuntu (wubi) on and off for more than a year..one week or month now and then.
    But I have never had the patience to give it an honest try, when something ¤#"% up I just returned to windows, but I always had a strange longing back. But this time I will make an real effort to learn this new world.

    I've been using most of this Saturday reading howtos to configure it the way I want. The amazing power of Linux is that there are dedicated helpful people who take the time to make these howtos.

    I guess there is nothing you cant do with linux, so far I have found whatever I was looking for and even more that I dindt know I wanted :) Even managed to import my Roboform passwords into Ubuntu Firefox (Sxipper extension)! I really didnt want to do all the, more than 150, passwords from scratch :)
    In windows I sometimes think that if I could tweak this and that it would be even better. Sometimes it is impossible but mostly it costs money. In Linux world only my imagination seems to set the limits. And all is free! Next thing to do now is to find a Shadowprotect equivalent so I can make a reliable image of my Ubuntu drive. I sure dont want to loose it now that I have set it up nicely :)

    Ocky: Vista is actually on a identical SATA2 drive. But it doesnt matter anymore, I have Ubuntu as fast as I want it now. It was, as usual, just me being ignorant :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  17. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    There's CloneZilla & PartImage. Dedoimedo Tutorial
    Good idea to mark that site. :)
    I still use Acronis TI 9, but then I am running 8.04, with 8.10 it is more
    convoluted; see here why ... https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=226601
    Will try CloneZilla soon.
     
  18. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Suliman,

    I finally stopped dual booting last year and permanently switched to Ubuntu Intrepid which I know see as a perfect alternate to Windows. Everything I did in Windows I can do in Ubuntu and more. In terms of encoding apps, the apps and codecs are x64 unlike in Windows and encoding audio and video is a charm. You can truly well utilize your 8GB memory and multi core CPUs in Linux.
     
  19. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Speaking of optimizing Ubuntu – does anyone have any idea how to improve the boot time?

    For my machine Ubuntu seems to be consistently 10-15 seconds slower in this aspect than Vista, and twice as slow as XP.
     
  20. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,701
    Depends on the number of services you load. The more, the longer.
    However, the difference is once Linux gui loads, everything is loaded, in Windows, you get gui, then many services load.
    Mrk
     
  21. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Unfortunately, even that advantage still leaves much to be desired from Ubuntu in my case.

    The only services I've disabled in Windows are Automatic Updates, System Restore and the Security Center. I haven't touched the services list in Ubuntu.
     
  22. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    I wouldnt worry about it 9.04 has 20second boot time and will be out in a few months.
     
  23. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    Should be out in April.... although I'm not sure why anyone would be worried about a few seconds longer boot time. Once it's up and running, mine stays that way for days or even a week or more. I can wait a few seconds.... :)
     
  24. Arup

    Arup Guest


    In my case the true boot time in Ubuntu thats from pressing the power button to desktop is much faster in Ubuntu, Vista boots fast and then goes and chokes in the desktop. However if you want', check the Ubuntu forums where folks have cut down boot time drastically with mods but do use them at your own risk.
     
  25. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    well it can be up until a kernel update is released.
    if you choose to skip kernel updates it can be up for years and years.
    I don't see the big deal with boot time either but the main distros seem to be working on boot time. current boot time for fedora 10 is 30 seconds. for fedora 11 they want a 20second boot time.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.