Gnome 2 on Sun Blade100: Performace?

[Rich Teer]

On 30 Jul 2003, Greg Menke wrote:

Robert Schulz <bertos@gmx.net> writes:

> Does anybody has a similar system running the Gnome 2 desktop?
> After all I want to install it (my linux is also running gnome) on the
> blade100...
>
> ...but how's the performance? Is it worth to invest time and nerves ;-)?

The Beta versions of GNOME 2 were a dog. However, I'm pleased
to say that even on a 200 MHz Ultra 1, the performance of GNOME 2
that comes with Solaris 9 8/03 is fine - so I suspect that on a
SB 100 it'll be even better (haven't got round to installing
S9 8/03 on my SB 100 yet). I suspect the performance boost is
due to compiler optimisation and the use of that new library which
is UltraSPARC optimised (whose name escapes me for the moment).

Subjectively, it still has some operatinal idiosyncracies I find
annoying (being a long time CDE user), so I'm not using it yet.
But objectively, from a performance point of view, it's OK.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: [url]http://www.rite-online.net[/url]

[Thomas Dehn]

"Rich Teer" <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:

> I suspect the performance boost is
> due to compiler optimisation and the use of that new library which
> is UltraSPARC optimised (whose name escapes me for the moment).

The medialib. Yep, that one is necessary for Gnome.


Thomas

[Akop Pogosian]

Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:

> On 30 Jul 2003, Greg Menke wrote:

> Robert Schulz <bertos@gmx.net> writes:

>> Does anybody has a similar system running the Gnome 2 desktop?
>> After all I want to install it (my linux is also running gnome) on the
>> blade100...
>>
>> ...but how's the performance? Is it worth to invest time and nerves ;-)?

> The Beta versions of GNOME 2 were a dog. However, I'm pleased
> to say that even on a 200 MHz Ultra 1, the performance of GNOME 2
> that comes with Solaris 9 8/03 is fine - so I suspect that on a
> SB 100 it'll be even better (haven't got round to installing
> S9 8/03 on my SB 100 yet). I suspect the performance boost is
> due to compiler optimisation and the use of that new library which
> is UltraSPARC optimised (whose name escapes me for the moment).

Heh, how did you get Solaris 9 8/03? We're delaying rollout of Solaris
9 on a large Solaris cluster because we don't have the media for 08/03
release yet. I called Sun but they told me that it will become
available to contract customers past mid-August. That's not bad except
that that's about the time when school starts and I'd rather finish
this project by then..


-akop

[Alan Coopersmith]

Robert Schulz <bertos@gmx.net> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|I have on my desk a Sun Blade100 with 512MB of RAM.
|Does anybody has a similar system running the Gnome 2 desktop?

I ran GNOME 2.0 on a SB100 with 512MB of RAM & Solaris 9 for several
months and had few complaints. I've since upgraded to 1GB of RAM and to
Solaris 9 8/03 (which includes GNOME 2.02) and my only complaint is that
it caches so much and swaps so rarely the disk often spins down in the
middle of the work day, then I have to wait for it to spin back up when
I run some command that's not cached. Of course, I'm not a typical
GNOME user - I refuse to run Nautilus and make sure it is disabled at
all times.

Make sure you install mediaLib and look at the other performance tips at
[url]http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/817-1740/6mhev3brn?a=view[/url]

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Alan Coopersmith [email]alanc@alum.calberkeley.org[/email]
[url]http://www.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/[/url] aka: [email]Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM[/email]
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

[Mors Planch]

Robert Schulz <bertos@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<3f27aef0$0$253$4d4ebb8e@read.news.de.uu.net> ...

> Hi,
>
> I have on my desk a Sun Blade100 with 512MB of RAM.
>
> Does anybody has a similar system running the Gnome 2 desktop?
> After all I want to install it (my linux is also running gnome) on the
> blade100...
>
> ...but how's the performance? Is it worth to invest time and nerves ;-)?
>
> cu,
> robert

3 users here, 2 tried gnome, I stayed with CDE. The gnome users
switched back to CDE after realizing that:
- slow performance vs CDE
- some java applications do not start properly. They fail 4-5 times
before they finaly start and the performance is poor.

Sure CDE is not the best in terms of visual and ease of configuration
but it's stable.

All users have Blade100 with 512 RAM, using solaris 8.

Mors.

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:41:35 +0200
Robert Schulz <bertos@gmx.net> wrote:

> I have on my desk a Sun Blade100 with 512MB of RAM.
>
> Does anybody has a similar system running the Gnome 2 desktop?
> After all I want to install it (my linux is also running gnome) on the
> blade100...
>
> ...but how's the performance? Is it worth to invest time and nerves ;-)?

My desktop is a U60 with 2 360MHz processors and 1.375G of RAM.

I had apprehensions installing Gnome, expecting to switch back
to CDE (which I actually like), but it turned out to be a lot
more usable that I expected. I'd like to know how the other
posters define "too slow", as I don't notice any difference in
my applications, and the desktop operations are as fast as under
CDE. For example, switching between desktops (I've got 8 desktops
filled with terminal windows, gvim windows, Mozilla, Sylpheed,
dia, StarOffice etc, and the delays I see are the application
windows repainting themselves. Switching desktops is a sub-second
affair (including Mozilla repainting its window), maybe marginally
slower than under CDE, but not much. I like the additional screen
real estate I have with Gnome, and the comprehensive menus.

I'm not switching back anytime soon.

--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid