|Summary:||Interactive performance concerns|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||Michael Fulbright <msf>|
|Component:||kernel||Assignee:||Arjan van de Ven <arjanv>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||Brian Brock <bbrock>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2004-09-30 15:40:32 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
|Bug Depends On:||84833|
Description Michael Fulbright 2003-02-17 21:50:27 UTC
Arjan asked me to file this for tracking. On a 1GHZ Athlon with 512MB RAM and a Millenium ][ video card, the GNOME desktop feels sluggish compared to the same experience with 8.0. I bumped the X process using renice -10, does help much. At 1280x1024 and 1024x768, the following is noticably sluggish: 1) open emacs with 'emacs -fn 10x20 <file>' 2) resize to height of screen 3) open a gnome-terminal and drag it (opaque drag in metacity) around in circles across the emacs window. 4) you will see the gnome-terminal window trailing the mouse pointer, trying to keep up.
Comment 1 Ingo Molnar 2003-02-17 21:57:16 UTC
is interactivity with X reniced to -10 just as good as it was in 8.0? we might as well consider using nice -10 for X, since the major complaint when we did the nice -10 change was that 'gnome terminal is sluggish' - which turned out to be a different bug (hopefully fixed in the next snapshot). was there any other regression with the X server reniced to -10, other than the gnome-terminal problem?
Comment 2 Ingo Molnar 2003-02-18 12:02:00 UTC
i'm strongly in favor of reinstating the nice -10 priority of X. we could do this in the kernel, but the preferred way would be to do it in the X server. Any chance to have that done now?
Comment 3 Michael Fulbright 2003-08-18 21:06:37 UTC
What was the final resolution for this issue for new kernels?
Comment 4 Mike A. Harris 2003-08-19 01:49:52 UTC
That changing the X server priority is nothing more than a hack. Instead, the kernel should work with interactive processes in a better manner. Our current kernels IMHO do this MUCH better, and allegedly 2.6.0 test series improves upon that, however I can't confirm that personally yet. I think this can be closed safely now, but I'll leave that to a kernel scheduler grand wizard. ;o)
Comment 5 Bugzilla owner 2004-09-30 15:40:32 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. However, Red Hat no longer maintains this version of the product. Please upgrade to the latest version and open a new bug if the problem persists. The Fedora Legacy project (http://fedoralegacy.org/) maintains some older releases, and if you believe this bug is interesting to them, please report the problem in the bug tracker at: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/