4:37 p.m.
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I
start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc
activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The
system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue;
browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
4:47 p.m.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, John Lagrue wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3.
I
start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc
activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The
system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue;
browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
check your disk I/O speed. OO takes quite a hit on the disk to load.
My laptop (Inspiron 8200) has obtained a really low disk I/O speed,
as checked with the command
hdparm -t /dev/hda
of about 3-10 MB/sec (erratic). Previously I had found out
that it was a bad interaction between the cd-automounter
(magicdev for gnome on previous versions of redhat), but i'm
now also getting this I/O rate on the console. I didn't see anything
wrong with the DMA setting, though should doublecheck. That kind of
bug of not setting it correctly is from the long past.
So, basically I have the same problem (perhaps not as much as 5 minutes
though), but I don't know how to get my disk back to full speed
(in my case rh9 gives me 27MB/sec).
- peter
4:52 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:37:14PM +0000, John Lagrue wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3.
I
start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc
activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The
system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue;
browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
Another tip that appeared recently is find the dictionary.lst file
and comment out all the language entries whose dictionaries you don't
want to use.
--
=======================================================================
You can't mend a wristwatch while falling from an airplane.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
One Trinity Place.
San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
telephone: (210)-999-7484
email:akonstam@trinity.edu
5:48 p.m.
That's a neat idea. I've noticed OOo often slows to a c..r..a..w..l
when I first use the spell checker on a single word in a document. I'm
going to try this and see if it fixes my problem.
Although, I have not noticed OOo being slow to start on my machine....at
least no slower than on any other distribution/computer around here.
--andy
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:52 -0600, akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:37:14PM +0000, John Lagrue wrote:
> This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I
> start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
> across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
>
> Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc
> activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The
> system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue;
> browsing, email etc.
>
> This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> JDL
Another tip that appeared recently is find the dictionary.lst file
and comment out all the language entries whose dictionaries you don't
want to use.
--
=======================================================================
You can't mend a wristwatch while falling from an airplane.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
One Trinity Place.
San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
telephone: (210)-999-7484
email:akonstam@trinity.edu
9:38 p.m.
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:52 -0600, akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:37:14PM +0000, John Lagrue wrote:
> This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I
> start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
> across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
>
> Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc
> activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The
> system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue;
> browsing, email etc.
>
> This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> JDL
Another tip that appeared recently is find the dictionary.lst file
and comment out all the language entries whose dictionaries you don't
want to use.
--
=======================================================================
You can't mend a wristwatch while falling from an airplane.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
One Trinity Place.
San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
telephone: (210)-999-7484
email:akonstam@trinity.edu
As a watchmaker I must agree with the airplane thing, but why bother,
when you hit the ground someone would have to mend it again anyway after
they take it off your wrist, if they can find your arm.
I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15
seconds in FC3.
Tim...
--
Shameless plug for my
brother-in-laws Irish band
http:/www.tmpco.com/immortals.html
10:10 p.m.
Timothy Payne wrote:
I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15
seconds in FC3.
Tim...
Hummm. 500 MHz Pentium III here with 256 MB RAM and (after I took the
advice about hashing out the non-needed languages) my OOo loads in a
blazing 40 seconds......
I just attribute it to OOo bloat plus my "dinosaur" box . :-)
7:45 a.m.
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:10 -0700, Scott wrote:
Timothy Payne wrote:
>
>I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15
>seconds in FC3.
>
>Tim...
>
>
>
Hummm. 500 MHz Pentium III here with 256 MB RAM and (after I took the
advice about hashing out the non-needed languages) my OOo loads in a
blazing 40 seconds......
I just attribute it to OOo bloat plus my "dinosaur" box . :-)
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo
install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
12:05 p.m.
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:10 -0700, Scott wrote:
>Timothy Payne wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15
>>seconds in FC3.
>>
>>Tim...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Hummm. 500 MHz Pentium III here with 256 MB RAM and (after I took the
>advice about hashing out the non-needed languages) my OOo loads in a
>blazing 40 seconds......
>
>I just attribute it to OOo bloat plus my "dinosaur" box . :-)
>
>
>
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo
install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but
at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
S
4:20 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
>i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock
OOo
>install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but
at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their models
by
clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
5:21 a.m.
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
>>i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo
>>install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
>>
>>
>Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but
>at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
>
>
They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their models
by
clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
Close enough for me... ;-)
8:08 a.m.
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 04:21 -0700, Scott wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
>
>
>>>i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo
>>>install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
>>>
>>>
>>Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but
>>at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
>>
>>
>
>They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their
models by
>clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
>
>
Close enough for me... ;-)
Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing.
I have a laptop with P-III 600 celeron and 192mb ram that loads OOo in <
20 seconds cold.
Some people have had various problems with packages and the reported fix
has often been erase the package and reinstall it.
10:55 a.m.
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 04:21 -0700, Scott wrote:
>Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo
>>>>install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but
>>>at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their
models by
>>clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Close enough for me... ;-)
>
>
>
Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing.
I'm aware of this......
4:29 p.m.
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:08:06AM -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
>
Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing.
I have a laptop with P-III 600 celeron and 192mb ram that loads OOo in <
20 seconds cold.
Some people have had various problems with packages and the reported fix
has often been erase the package and reinstall it.
Mine also loads in 20 seconds.
Now the question is that slow or fast.
Certainly slow compared to Word in Windows. And I have 256MB ram and 1.4 Ghz
processor.
So fast and slow are relative. The original poster noted 5 minutes
which certainly is slow.
--
=======================================================================
There are ten or twenty basic truths, and life is the process of
discovering them over and over and over.
-- David Nichols
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
One Trinity Place.
San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
telephone: (210)-999-7484
email:akonstam@trinity.edu
5:03 p.m.
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:29:47 -0600
akonstam(a)trinity.edu insightfully noted:
AE>On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:08:06AM -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
AE>> >
AE>>
AE>> Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing.
AE>> I have a laptop with P-III 600 celeron and 192mb ram that loads OOo
AE>in <> 20 seconds cold.
AE>>
AE>> Some people have had various problems with packages and the reported
AE>fix> has often been erase the package and reinstall it.
AE>Mine also loads in 20 seconds. Now the question is that slow or fast.
AE>Certainly slow compared to Word in Windows. And I have 256MB ram and
AE>1.4 Ghz processor.
AE>So fast and slow are relative. The original poster noted 5 minutes
AE>which certainly is slow.
=============================================
Running FC3 on an AMD Athlon Thunderbird 750mhz; 256mb RAM. OOo 1.1.2
just opened for me (cold) in 11 seconds. I'm running stock Gnome at the
moment, which I rarely use. I believe it opens more quickly use xfce4 and
even quicker yet using ion or wmi.
Mike
--
"The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30
years of his life"
--Muhammad Ali
5:19 p.m.
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:37:14 +0000, John Lagrue <admin(a)moraystudio.com> wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3.
I
start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc
activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The
system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue;
browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
As I noted that the system is used about 128M and excluded the cached memory...
So it may not enough memory and CPU is also depended....
Ringo
5:28 p.m.
Wong Kwok-hon wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:37:14 +0000, John Lagrue
<admin(a)moraystudio.com> wrote:
>This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I
>start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
>across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
>
>Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc
>activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The
>system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue;
>browsing, email etc.
>
>This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>JDL
>
>
As I noted that the system is used about 128M and excluded the cached memory...
So it may not enough memory and CPU is also depended....
Ringo
If the problem was anything to do with either disk transfer rates or
amount of memory then I would see my disk hammering away flat out. But
as I said in my first email, disc activity stops! So does CPU activity.
OO just sits there for 5 minutes without displaying any window.
Any other suggestions?
JDL
5:39 p.m.
On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:28, John Lagrue wrote:
If the problem was anything to do with either disk transfer rates
or amount of memory then I would see my disk hammering away flat
out. But as I said in my first email, disc activity stops! So
does CPU activity. OO just sits there for 5 minutes without
displaying any window.
Any other suggestions?
JDL
I saw another post complaining of the same symptoms in past week
(your's too?). I also am running a laptop (Sony VAIO, 750MHz) and
as you can see below it took about 11 seconds to load to the blank
page and exit again with the command shown.
16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date
Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004
Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was near
25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm using
the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
Regards, Mike Klinke
6:47 p.m.
Mike Klinke wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:28, John Lagrue wrote:
>If the problem was anything to do with either disk transfer rates
>or amount of memory then I would see my disk hammering away flat
>out. But as I said in my first email, disc activity stops! So
>does CPU activity. OO just sits there for 5 minutes without
>displaying any window.
>
>Any other suggestions?
>
>JDL
>
>
I saw another post complaining of the same symptoms in past week
(your's too?). I also am running a laptop (Sony VAIO, 750MHz) and
as you can see below it took about 11 seconds to load to the blank
page and exit again with the command shown.
No, that wasn't me.
16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date
Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004
Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was near
25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm using
the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean install of
FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
JDL
7:41 p.m.
On Thursday 02 December 2004 18:47, JL wrote:
>16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date
>Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004
>Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
>
>This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was
> near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm
> using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean
install of FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
This was also a clean FC3 install. This tells me that it's not a
fundamental problem with OpenOffice but rather something associated
with the environment. Perhaps running "strace ooffice" will allow
you to see what's hanging up.
Regards, Mike Klinke
9:21 p.m.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:41:27 -0600, Mike Klinke <lsomike(a)futzin.com> wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 18:47, JL wrote:
> >16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date
> >Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004
> >Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
> >
> >This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was
> > near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm
> > using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
>
> That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean
> install of FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
>
This was also a clean FC3 install. This tells me that it's not a
fundamental problem with OpenOffice but rather something associated
with the environment. Perhaps running "strace ooffice" will allow
you to see what's hanging up.
I had the problem too
in my FC2 installation with latest OO,
strace oowrite gave me, waiting for cups response
so if I restart cups services, OO opening...
nope for the fresh FC3
--
ichtus
_______________________________________________
Lewi Supranata .K
iPLUG Team
http://mbone.petra.ac.id/u/ichtus
GnuPG Public Key:
http://mbone.petra.ac.id/u/ichtus/ichtus-keys2
_______________________________________________
5:07 a.m.
On Friday 03 Dec 2004 03:21, Lewi Kristianto wrote:
I had the problem too
in my FC2 installation with latest OO,
strace oowrite gave me, waiting for cups response
so if I restart cups services, OO opening...
nope for the fresh FC3
It maybe worth you guys trying this out:
http://segfaultskde.berlios.de/index.php?content=oooqs
OO loads in about 5-7 secs now for me (First Opening) 2 secs from then on..
And as I have mentioned before use Checkinstall to build the RPM, you really
*don't* want to install source apps on an RPM based system IMHO.
Colin
--
Fedora Core 2, Custom Built Kernel 2.6.9-ck3
KDE-Redhat-3.3.1-4.1.2.kde
Registered Linux user number #342953
3:13 p.m.
Colin J Thomson wrote:
On Friday 03 Dec 2004 03:21, Lewi Kristianto wrote:
>I had the problem too
>in my FC2 installation with latest OO,
>strace oowrite gave me, waiting for cups response
>so if I restart cups services, OO opening...
>nope for the fresh FC3
>
>
It maybe worth you guys trying this out:
http://segfaultskde.berlios.de/index.php?content=oooqs
OO loads in about 5-7 secs now for me (First Opening) 2 secs from then on..
Now that you mention it, I'm amazed this isn't part of the Linux
version. I used OOo on Windows for a while and the windows version
comes with quickstarter. It made a difference, for sure (as does the
MS office fast start).
6:32 p.m.
Mike Klinke wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 18:47, JL wrote:
>>16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date
>>Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004
>>Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
>>
>>This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was
>>near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm
>>using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
>>
>>
>That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean
>install of FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
>
>
>
This was also a clean FC3 install. This tells me that it's not a
fundamental problem with OpenOffice but rather something associated
with the environment. Perhaps running "strace ooffice" will allow
you to see what's hanging up.
Regards, Mike Klinke
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output where
it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27
fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0
setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0
connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631),
sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection
refused)
close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155, 64.15.205.180,
64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in starting is caused by
the timeout on all the connections. Can anybody explain what on earth is
happening?
JDL
8:14 p.m.
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output
where
it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27
fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0
setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0
connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631),
sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection
refused)
close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155, 64.15.205.180,
64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in starting is caused by
the timeout on all the connections. Can anybody explain what on earth is
happening?
see if those addresses (or the equivalent host names) are in the file
~/.recently-used
--
Kevin Street
street(a)rogers.com
9:30 p.m.
On Friday 03 December 2004 18:32, JL wrote:
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output
where it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27
fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0
setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0
connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631),
sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED
(Connection refused)
close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155,
64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in
starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can
anybody explain what on earth is happening?
That block of addresses belongs to an outfit that seems to be
associated with "all things spammy" if you look them up via Google.
I can't imagine why opening ooffice would try to contact that net
block, or any other for that matter. Ooffice doesn't do that here.
If you don't get any other concrete ideas on this I'd be tempted to
remove and re-install OpenOffice to see if that makes a difference.
If you were running a Windows box I'd suggest a diagnostic program
program like "spybot" but .....
Regards, Mike Klinke
20:59:19 # whois -h whois.arin.net 64.15.205.241
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[Redirected to rwhois.exodus.net:4321]
[Querying rwhois.exodus.net]
[rwhois.exodus.net]
network:Class-Name:network
network:Auth-Area:0.0.0.0/0
network:Network-Name:64.15.205.0
network:IP-Network:64.15.205.0/24
network:Organization;I:DBS Administration Pty Ltd
network:Name;I:Billy Vanderent
network:Email;I:b.vanderent@au.darkbluesea.com
network:Street;I:GPO Box 278
network:City;I:Brisbane, QLD, Australia 4001
9:45 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Klinke"
On Friday 03 December 2004 18:32, JL wrote:
>
> I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output
> where it is hanging up.
>
> time(NULL) = 1102119632
> socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27
> fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0
> setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
> setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0
> connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631),
> sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED
> (Connection refused)
> close(27) = 0
>
> which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155,
> 64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in
> starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can
> anybody explain what on earth is happening?
>
That block of addresses belongs to an outfit that seems to be
associated with "all things spammy" if you look them up via Google.
Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for ip patterns. I
can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded into the program. Some
FQDN's sure, but not an ip address.
Weird!
-eric wood
9:56 p.m.
On Friday 03 December 2004 22:45, Eric Wood wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Klinke"
> On Friday 03 December 2004 18:32, JL wrote:
>> I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output
>> where it is hanging up.
>>
>> time(NULL) = 1102119632
>> socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27
>> fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0
>> setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
>> setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0
>> connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631),
>> sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED
>> (Connection refused)
>> close(27) = 0
>>
>> which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155,
>> 64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in
>> starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can
>> anybody explain what on earth is happening?
>
> That block of addresses belongs to an outfit that seems to be
> associated with "all things spammy" if you look them up via
> Google.
Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for ip
patterns. I can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded
into the program. Some FQDN's sure, but not an ip address.
Weird!
If its there, tell the OO folks ASAP. I haven't let a 64.xx.xx.xx
address past iptables in 5 years.
-eric wood
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.30% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
9:53 a.m.
Eric Wood wrote:
Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for
ip
patterns. I can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded into
the program. Some FQDN's sure, but not an ip address.
It's not going to be in the OO binary or everyone would be seeing this.
My guess is that the addresses are coming from ~/.recently-used which
several gnome aps use to create a list of recently used file names. In
OO these show up at the bottom of the File menu. If you end up with
some remote URL's listed in the .recently-used file then many apps will
try to visit them when they start up.
I don't know if there is a way to control what gets saved in the list,
but you can always clean it out manually and see if that speeds up the
OO startup.
--
Kevin Street
street(a)rogers.com
4:48 p.m.
Kevin Street wrote:
Eric Wood wrote:
> Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for ip
> patterns. I can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded
> into the program. Some FQDN's sure, but not an ip address.
It's not going to be in the OO binary or everyone would be seeing
this. My guess is that the addresses are coming from ~/.recently-used
which several gnome aps use to create a list of recently used file
names. In OO these show up at the bottom of the File menu. If you
end up with some remote URL's listed in the .recently-used file then
many apps will try to visit them when they start up.
I don't know if there is a way to control what gets saved in the list,
but you can always clean it out manually and see if that speeds up the
OO startup.
Yes! I just removed the file and oowriter started up at its usual speed.
I have no idea at all where those addresses came from because they were
not listed in the file - but removing it has fixed things.
Thanks everyone for your advice.
JDL
5:30 p.m.
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2004 22:37 schrieb John Lagrue:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3.
I
start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes
across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
I had the same problem, 5-10 minutes, sometimes never.... Somebody mentioned
that it might be a network thing, that OO is waiting for a network
connection. I found the following suggestions:
- under options-Internet set the proxy to None
- do you have a network printer installed? If so, make a dummy local printer
and set that as default.
As somebody else mentioned:
- comment out all dictionaries that you don't need in
in /usr/lib/ooo-1.1/share/dict/ooo/dictionary.lst
Unfortunately, all these suggestions didn't improve anything. It did get a bit
better after I removed and reinstalled the rpms, but it's still terribly
slow.
Hopefully the next release will be much faster. There are snapshot rpms for
the development version on the openoffice webpage
(http://download.openoffice.org/index.html). They don't conflict with the
existing OO1.1. but install a separate copy of OO 1.9. This version is really
much faster (and uses less memory), but of course it's development and more
risky.
Hope that helps
Stephan
7090
days inactive
7092
days old
29 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
akonstam＠trinity.edu -
Andrew Choens -
Colin J Thomson -
Eric Wood -
Gene Heskett -
Jeff Vian -
John Lagrue -
Kevin Street -
Lewi Kristianto -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Scottaline -
Mike Klinke -
Peter Teuben -
Scott -
Stephan Matthiesen -
Tim -
Wong Kwok-hon