[TriLUG] Re: RH9 [lack of] performance

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

ah, buggrit.  just when i was about to upgrade.  anyone here
have any experienced light to shed on this?

> <someone from another list> writes:
> 
>>>Speaking of kill files, does anybody know why Red Hat 9 is so much 
>>>slower than previous versions?  I installed it on the beater box that I 
>>>lend out and use for emergencies and it's unusable.
> 
> 
> A few reasons:
> 
> - - UTF-8 by default throughout the OS, including in the boot scripts; this
>   means odd and/or non-optimized collation rules etc. make sure you set
>   "LANG=C" instead of "LANG=en_US.utf8".
> 
> - - some horrible wchar_t patches applied to various things.  The RH9
>   version of Tcl/Tk, for example, uses 4x the RAM for text areas, due to a
>   patch that makes them use wchar_t instead of char.   This *massively*
>   screws up most useful Tk apps, like ExMH.
> 
> - - apparently, RH9 came with block cache settings that are suboptimal.
>   A thread here:
>   http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/users/2003-June/010158.html
>   and elsewhere notes that this helps:
> 
> 	/sbin/sysctl -w vm.bdflush="30 500 0 0 2560 15360 60 20 0"
> 
>   WFM!
> 
> My next install will run Debian ;) -- assuming Fedora doesn't sort it
> all out.  The UTF-8 fiasco especially pissed me off.

-- 
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"