6:13 p.m.
Quick note - per my testing, Beta RC3 desktop spin passes the validation
testing for Beta, with a clean slate except for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636229 which I noted in
passing. Great job!
testing from others to confirm is still welcome! I'm not always right =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
11:29 p.m.
People,
On 2010-09-22 09:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
Quick note - per my testing, Beta RC3 desktop spin passes the
validation
testing for Beta, with a clean slate except for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636229 which I noted in
passing. Great job!
testing from others to confirm is still welcome! I'm not always right =)
I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact, seems to
install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a Gateway
LT30 netbook - with no problems).
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
1:10 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil(a)pricom.com.au> wrote:
<SNIP>
I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact, seems
to
install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a Gateway
LT30 netbook - with no problems).
<SNIP>
Are you noticing any outlier processes eating into system resources
when running top? or maybe something in dmesg or /var/log/messages
that might elude to the cause of the slow down ... I've got the XFCE
spin running here without any issues. I imagine this is a bug of some
sort, just need to track it down :)
-AdamM
--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
()Â ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org  - against proprietary attachments
2:58 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
People,
On 2010-09-22 09:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Quick note - per my testing, Beta RC3 desktop spin passes the validation
> testing for Beta, with a clean slate except for
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636229 which I noted in
> passing. Great job!
>
> testing from others to confirm is still welcome! I'm not always right =)
I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact, seems to
install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a Gateway
LT30 netbook - with no problems).
Like OtherAdam, I can't reproduce; I did all that validation testing
from an installed copy of the live image (I installed it to a USB stick,
in fact, on a Dell Inspiron 6400, so it's not exactly a fast
environment, but it ran fine).
I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I recommend
using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
5:29 a.m.
Guys,
On 2010-09-22 17:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> People,
>
>
> On 2010-09-22 09:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Quick note - per my testing, Beta RC3 desktop spin passes the validation
>> testing for Beta, with a clean slate except for
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=636229 which I noted in
>> passing. Great job!
>>
>> testing from others to confirm is still welcome! I'm not always right =)
>
>
> I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact, seems to
> install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
> deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a Gateway
> LT30 netbook - with no problems).
Like OtherAdam, I can't reproduce; I did all that validation testing
from an installed copy of the live image (I installed it to a USB stick,
in fact, on a Dell Inspiron 6400, so it's not exactly a fast
environment, but it ran fine).
I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I recommend
using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
Is there some way to find out what it is about Xorg in particular?
Thanks,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
6:03 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 20:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I
recommend
> using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
> look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
Is there some way to find out what it is about Xorg in particular?
Check /var/log/Xorg.0.log for incriminating messages.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
5:25 a.m.
Adam,
On 2010-09-22 21:03, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 20:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I recommend
>> using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
>> look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
>
>
> Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
>
> Is there some way to find out what it is about Xorg in particular?
Check /var/log/Xorg.0.log for incriminating messages.
I can't see anything obvious - should I send this log to anyone now that
this version as been OK'd already?
Thanks,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
4:25 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 08:25:24PM +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
Adam,
On 2010-09-22 21:03, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 20:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>
>>> I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I recommend
>>> using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
>>> look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
>>
>> Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
>>
>> Is there some way to find out what it is about Xorg in particular?
>
> Check /var/log/Xorg.0.log for incriminating messages.
I can't see anything obvious - should I send this log to anyone now that
this version as been OK'd already?
Hi !
Not sure this is related but I'm getting high system load (>1.7)
and CPU uses (~25% of a 1.6GHz CPU for Xorg + Terminal fullscreen
+ top) with the last xfce RC3 spin. My "gpu" is an intel i915GM.
Strangely, OpenGL, compositing and video playback works fine (I
means as good as with previous Fedora releases).
Nothing suspicious in dmesg, and Xorg.log.
One thing strange is /proc/interrupts. Under Fedora 13, I'm
getting:
"""""""""" /proc/interrupts f13
(truncated)
CPU0
0: 142960 IO-APIC-edge timer
14: 35966 IO-APIC-edge ata_piix
16: 2572 IO-APIC-fasteoi uhci_hcd:usb5, i915
17: 27351 IO-APIC-fasteoi ipw2200, Intel ICH6
""""""""""
Whereas with Fedora 14:
"""""""""" /proc/interrupts f14
(truncated)
CPU0
0: 221368 IO-APIC-edge timer
14: 105209 IO-APIC-edge ata_piix
16: 109245 IO-APIC-fasteoi uhci_hcd:usb5, i915
17: 77615 IO-APIC-fasteoi ipw2200, Intel ICH6
""""""""""
Surely the ratio of "uhci_hcd:usb5, i915" seems really out of
proportion.
regards,
/John
7:48 a.m.
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 20:25 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
Adam,
On 2010-09-22 21:03, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 20:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>
>>> I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I recommend
>>> using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
>>> look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
>>
>>
>> Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
>>
>> Is there some way to find out what it is about Xorg in particular?
>
> Check /var/log/Xorg.0.log for incriminating messages.
I can't see anything obvious - should I send this log to anyone
now that
this version as been OK'd already?
You should still file a bug, as we can fix it for the final release,
perhaps. Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
10:42 p.m.
Adam,
On 2010-09-24 22:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 20:25 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> Adam,
>
>
> On 2010-09-22 21:03, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 20:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>>
>>>> I agree with Adam - look for processes eating resources. I recommend
>>>> using htop (a much better top replacement) and iotop (which will let you
>>>> look for processes that are using the disk heavily).
>>>
>>>
>>> Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
>>>
>>> Is there some way to find out what it is about Xorg in particular?
>>
>> Check /var/log/Xorg.0.log for incriminating messages.
> I can't see anything obvious - should I send this log to anyone now that
> this version as been OK'd already?
You should still file a bug, as we can fix it for the final release,
perhaps. Thanks!
Done!
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
3:32 a.m.
Philip Rhoades wrote:
Guys,
On 2010-09-22 17:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> People,
>>
>>
>> I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact, seems to
>> install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
>> deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a Gateway
>> LT30 netbook - with no problems).
> Like OtherAdam, I can't reproduce; I did all that validation testing
> from an installed copy of the live image (I installed it to a USB stick,
> in fact, on a Dell Inspiron 6400, so it's not exactly a fast
> environment, but it ran fine).
>
Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
Phil, I realise you've already entered a bug for this, but I noticed
that your machine
http://support.gateway.com/s/notebook/2009/gateway/lt/lt30/LT30sp2.shtml
uses the Intel GMA500 chipset, with a quite modern screen geometry of
1366 x 768. So?
A recent post on the laptop list from another user with a GMA500
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/laptop/2010-September/000926.html
is reporting 'slow performance' with F13 as well, suspected due to the
drivers.
I wonder whether F14 is running ok on other GMA500 machines, or
whether the chipset is causing problems?
regards, Ron
6 a.m.
Ron,
On 2010-09-27 18:32, Ron Leach wrote:
Philip Rhoades wrote:
> Guys,
>
>
> On 2010-09-22 17:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>>> People,
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact,
>>> seems to
>>> install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
>>> deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a
>>> Gateway
>>> LT30 netbook - with no problems).
>>
>> Like OtherAdam, I can't reproduce; I did all that validation testing
>> from an installed copy of the live image (I installed it to a USB stick,
>> in fact, on a Dell Inspiron 6400, so it's not exactly a fast
>> environment, but it ran fine).
>
>
> Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
>
Phil, I realise you've already entered a bug for this, but I noticed
that your machine
http://support.gateway.com/s/notebook/2009/gateway/lt/lt30/LT30sp2.shtml
uses the Intel GMA500 chipset, with a quite modern screen geometry of
1366 x 768. So?
It is defaulting to 1024x768 and I can't change it to something else eg
800x600 or 640x480 . .
A recent post on the laptop list from another user with a GMA500
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/laptop/2010-September/000926.html
is reporting 'slow performance' with F13 as well, suspected due to the
drivers.
I wonder whether F14 is running ok on other GMA500 machines, or whether
the chipset is causing problems?
I have been using it with F13 for some time with no problems except for
it being a little slower than other distros but NOT with the current
slowness problem . .
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
5:23 p.m.
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:32 +0100, Ron Leach wrote:
Philip Rhoades wrote:
> Guys,
>
>
> On 2010-09-22 17:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>>> People,
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact, seems to
>>> install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
>>> deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a Gateway
>>> LT30 netbook - with no problems).
>> Like OtherAdam, I can't reproduce; I did all that validation testing
>> from an installed copy of the live image (I installed it to a USB stick,
>> in fact, on a Dell Inspiron 6400, so it's not exactly a fast
>> environment, but it ran fine).
>>
>
> Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
>
Phil, I realise you've already entered a bug for this, but I noticed
that your machine
http://support.gateway.com/s/notebook/2009/gateway/lt/lt30/LT30sp2.shtml
uses the Intel GMA500 chipset, with a quite modern screen geometry of
1366 x 768. So?
A recent post on the laptop list from another user with a GMA500
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/laptop/2010-September/000926.html
is reporting 'slow performance' with F13 as well, suspected due to the
drivers.
I wonder whether F14 is running ok on other GMA500 machines, or
whether the chipset is causing problems?
Nice catch, Ron. This applies to Phillip and also the people from that
thread:
GMA 500 has no native driver in Fedora, for long and boring reasons. A
reasonably well working driver is available in the RPM Fusion
repository; note that the 3D and video playback acceleration functions
in this driver are enabled by a non-free X library which is installed by
default (if software freedom is an issue for you, you may choose to
forcibly remove the xpsb-glx package; this will mean you now have a
fully F/OSS driver, but you will lose 3D and video playback
acceleration). There is no legal issue with using this driver in any
jurisdiction of which I'm aware.
Instructions for installing the driver can be found at
http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/08/10/intel-gma500-poulsbo-on-fedora-11...
- though that post's name references F11, the repository should provide working
packages for F12 and F13 too (and soon for F14). I run F13 on my own Poulsbo-based
system.
This driver should provide reasonable performance, definitely better
than the default, which is to use the utterly unoptimised 'vesa' driver.
(Ron, if you could update the thread you referenced I'd appreciate it.
Especially, the stuff in my fedorapeople.org space simply doesn't work,
I should remove it. I maintain the RPM Fusion packages and they include
all the latest work, the stuff on fedorapeople.org is old, it's where I
kept my packages before they got into Fusion).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
12:12 a.m.
Adam,
On 2010-09-28 08:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:32 +0100, Ron Leach wrote:
> Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>>
>> On 2010-09-22 17:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:29 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>>>> People,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I find it boots OK with qemu and from a USB stick and, in fact, seems to
>>>> install OK to a HD but when running the resulting install, I find it is
>>>> deadly slow and unusable (I am using F13 on the same machine - a Gateway
>>>> LT30 netbook - with no problems).
>>> Like OtherAdam, I can't reproduce; I did all that validation testing
>>> from an installed copy of the live image (I installed it to a USB stick,
>>> in fact, on a Dell Inspiron 6400, so it's not exactly a fast
>>> environment, but it ran fine).
>>>
>
>>
>> Using top I found it is Xorg - taking up nearly 100% of CPU time . .
>>
>
> Phil, I realise you've already entered a bug for this, but I noticed
> that your machine
>
> http://support.gateway.com/s/notebook/2009/gateway/lt/lt30/LT30sp2.shtml
>
> uses the Intel GMA500 chipset, with a quite modern screen geometry of
> 1366 x 768. So?
>
> A recent post on the laptop list from another user with a GMA500
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/laptop/2010-September/000926.html
>
> is reporting 'slow performance' with F13 as well, suspected due to the
> drivers.
>
> I wonder whether F14 is running ok on other GMA500 machines, or
> whether the chipset is causing problems?
Nice catch, Ron. This applies to Phillip and also the people from that
thread:
GMA 500 has no native driver in Fedora, for long and boring reasons. A
reasonably well working driver is available in the RPM Fusion
repository; note that the 3D and video playback acceleration functions
in this driver are enabled by a non-free X library which is installed by
default (if software freedom is an issue for you, you may choose to
forcibly remove the xpsb-glx package; this will mean you now have a
fully F/OSS driver, but you will lose 3D and video playback
acceleration). There is no legal issue with using this driver in any
jurisdiction of which I'm aware.
Instructions for installing the driver can be found at
http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/08/10/intel-gma500-poulsbo-on-fedora-11...
- though that post's name references F11, the repository should provide working
packages for F12 and F13 too (and soon for F14). I run F13 on my own Poulsbo-based
system.
This driver should provide reasonable performance, definitely better
than the default, which is to use the utterly unoptimised 'vesa' driver.
I am having trouble installing this driver but in any case I don't think
that is what the problem is - I have been running F13 quite happily for
some time without having to use any extra drivers (it is a bit slower
than say PCLinuxOS2010 but still quite usable).
Thanks,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
3:14 a.m.
Philip Rhoades wrote:
Adam,
On 2010-09-28 08:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
> GMA 500 has no native driver in Fedora, for long and boring reasons. A
> reasonably well working driver is available in the RPM Fusion
> repository; note that the 3D and video playback acceleration functions
> in this driver are enabled by a non-free X library which is installed by
> default (if software freedom is an issue for you, you may choose to
> forcibly remove the xpsb-glx package; this will mean you now have a
> fully F/OSS driver, but you will lose 3D and video playback
> acceleration). There is no legal issue with using this driver in any
> jurisdiction of which I'm aware.
>
> Instructions for installing the driver can be found at
>
http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/08/10/intel-gma500-poulsbo-on-fedora-11...
> - though that post's name references F11, the repository should
> provide working packages for F12 and F13 too (and soon for F14). I run
> F13 on my own Poulsbo-based system.
>
> This driver should provide reasonable performance, definitely better
> than the default, which is to use the utterly unoptimised 'vesa' driver.
I am having trouble installing this driver but in any case I don't think
that is what the problem is - I have been running F13 quite happily for
some time without having to use any extra drivers (it is a bit slower
than say PCLinuxOS2010 but still quite usable).
Phil, thanks for the clarification. So, in your hardware - your
Gateway netbook - F13 is giving you 1366x768, or only 1024x768
'stretched' across the screen? I guess one of the display setup menus
should list 1366x768 as a selectable option.
regards, Ron
4:31 a.m.
Ron,
On 2010-09-28 18:14, Ron Leach wrote:
Philip Rhoades wrote:
> Adam,
>
>
> On 2010-09-28 08:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> GMA 500 has no native driver in Fedora, for long and boring reasons. A
>> reasonably well working driver is available in the RPM Fusion
>> repository; note that the 3D and video playback acceleration functions
>> in this driver are enabled by a non-free X library which is installed by
>> default (if software freedom is an issue for you, you may choose to
>> forcibly remove the xpsb-glx package; this will mean you now have a
>> fully F/OSS driver, but you will lose 3D and video playback
>> acceleration). There is no legal issue with using this driver in any
>> jurisdiction of which I'm aware.
>>
>> Instructions for installing the driver can be found at
>>
http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/08/10/intel-gma500-poulsbo-on-fedora-11...
>> - though that post's name references F11, the repository should
>> provide working packages for F12 and F13 too (and soon for F14). I
>> run F13 on my own Poulsbo-based system.
>>
>> This driver should provide reasonable performance, definitely better
>> than the default, which is to use the utterly unoptimised 'vesa' driver.
>
>
> I am having trouble installing this driver but in any case I don't
> think that is what the problem is - I have been running F13 quite
> happily for some time without having to use any extra drivers (it is a
> bit slower than say PCLinuxOS2010 but still quite usable).
>
Phil, thanks for the clarification. So, in your hardware - your Gateway
netbook - F13 is giving you 1366x768, or only 1024x768 'stretched'
across the screen? I guess one of the display setup menus should list
1366x768 as a selectable option.
It defaults to 1024x768 - the only other option from the XFCE GUI is
"Auto" which stays at 1024x768. The afore mentioned PCLinuxOS2010,
however, runs at the higher 1366x768 resolution happily - how can I work
out which driver that is using?
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
6 a.m.
Phil, sorry to reply slightly out of sequence (I've accidentally
deleted your useful post about the display).
Thanks for the clarification about F13 and the display geometries when
using F13 'straight out of the box'. In summary, your experience
tells us F13 doesn't support GMA500 at 1366x768, though Adam suggests
a replacement driver in rpmfusion might do so (does do so?).
You experienced difficulty trying that driver - was that in F13 or in
your F14 trial?
Back to F14 beta RC3, the topic of your original post, you are
experiencing very slow operations with F14. Adam's post suggests that
F14 needs a new driver for your chipset (he says 'soon for F14'). My
own feeling is that until a GMA500-specific driver is employed, in
view of the historic problems described in Adam's blog Xorg might be a
bit unstable with that chipset.
Your remark about PClinuxOS2010 is interesting, though. I, too,
wonder what driver they are using; unfortunately I lack the skills to
suggest how to check it, sorry about that. Did you say that driver
gives you 1366x768 (I've lost your post).
regards, Ron
8:17 a.m.
Ron,
On 2010-09-28 21:00, Ron Leach wrote:
Phil, sorry to reply slightly out of sequence (I've accidentally
deleted
your useful post about the display).
Thanks for the clarification about F13 and the display geometries when
using F13 'straight out of the box'. In summary, your experience tells
us F13 doesn't support GMA500 at 1366x768, though Adam suggests a
replacement driver in rpmfusion might do so (does do so?).
I can't get 1366x768 on F13 but the lower res is fine for me anyway.
I've tried to install (for both F13 and F14) but the package in the link
doesn't seem to exist . .
You experienced difficulty trying that driver - was that in F13 or
in
your F14 trial?
Both now . .
Back to F14 beta RC3, the topic of your original post, you are
experiencing very slow operations with F14. Adam's post suggests that
F14 needs a new driver for your chipset (he says 'soon for F14'). My own
feeling is that until a GMA500-specific driver is employed, in view of
the historic problems described in Adam's blog Xorg might be a bit
unstable with that chipset.
I don't know about that but I don't understand why F14 can't behave at
least as well as F13 with the 1024x768 res.
Your remark about PClinuxOS2010 is interesting, though. I, too,
wonder
what driver they are using; unfortunately I lack the skills to suggest
how to check it, sorry about that. Did you say that driver gives you
1366x768 (I've lost your post).
I have sent the output of PClinuxOS2010 pcimodules and lsmod to someone
else in case that helps them.
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
9:02 a.m.
Philip Rhoades wrote:
Ron wrote,
> Back to F14 beta RC3, the topic of your original post, you are
> experiencing very slow operations with F14. Adam's post suggests that
> F14 needs a new driver for your chipset (he says 'soon for F14'). My own
> feeling is that until a GMA500-specific driver is employed, in view of
> the historic problems described in Adam's blog Xorg might be a bit
> unstable with that chipset.
I don't know about that but I don't understand why F14 can't behave at
least as well as F13 with the 1024x768 res.
That's a fair point. I wonder if F14 contains a different (newer)
version of 'Xorg', maybe. Anyway, Adam said he'd update the GMA500
driver to F14 - he'll have to test it anyway, and so it should be both
available, and loadable.
regards, Ron
10:06 a.m.
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 15:02 +0100, Ron Leach wrote:
Philip Rhoades wrote:
> Ron wrote,
>> Back to F14 beta RC3, the topic of your original post, you are
>> experiencing very slow operations with F14. Adam's post suggests that
>> F14 needs a new driver for your chipset (he says 'soon for F14'). My
own
>> feeling is that until a GMA500-specific driver is employed, in view of
>> the historic problems described in Adam's blog Xorg might be a bit
>> unstable with that chipset.
>
>
> I don't know about that but I don't understand why F14 can't behave at
> least as well as F13 with the 1024x768 res.
>
That's a fair point. I wonder if F14 contains a different (newer)
version of 'Xorg', maybe. Anyway, Adam said he'd update the GMA500
driver to F14 - he'll have to test it anyway, and so it should be both
available, and loadable.
vesa is a very slow driver. It's possible F14 is putting more strain on
the driver in some way. What desktop are you running, Philip?
It's fairly common for newer resolutions like 1366x768 not to show up
when using vesa, although this can be fixed by the vesa developers if
you file a bug report (it's not a high priority though).
xorg-x11-drv-psb should be available for F14 now. Did you make sure to
follow the instructions to enable the RPM Fusion repositories, including
the non-free repository, before running 'yum install xorg-x11-drv-psb'?
You're not running the x86-64 Fedora, are you? (I only build the driver
for ix86 at present, up till now only 32-bit systems have had GMA 500
graphics).
I think PCLOS probably has the psb driver out of the box, there would be
no legal or technical restriction on them doing this, and a Mandriva
package of the driver is available which they would likely source from.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
11:39 p.m.
Adam,
On 2010-09-29 01:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 15:02 +0100, Ron Leach wrote:
> Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> Ron wrote,
>>> Back to F14 beta RC3, the topic of your original post, you are
>>> experiencing very slow operations with F14. Adam's post suggests that
>>> F14 needs a new driver for your chipset (he says 'soon for F14'). My
own
>>> feeling is that until a GMA500-specific driver is employed, in view of
>>> the historic problems described in Adam's blog Xorg might be a bit
>>> unstable with that chipset.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about that but I don't understand why F14 can't behave
at
>> least as well as F13 with the 1024x768 res.
>>
>
> That's a fair point. I wonder if F14 contains a different (newer)
> version of 'Xorg', maybe. Anyway, Adam said he'd update the GMA500
> driver to F14 - he'll have to test it anyway, and so it should be both
> available, and loadable.
vesa is a very slow driver. It's possible F14 is putting more strain on
the driver in some way. What desktop are you running, Philip?
XFCE
It's fairly common for newer resolutions like 1366x768 not to
show up
when using vesa, although this can be fixed by the vesa developers if
you file a bug report (it's not a high priority though).
I will check the new beta release and see what happens first.
xorg-x11-drv-psb should be available for F14 now. Did you make sure
to
follow the instructions to enable the RPM Fusion repositories, including
the non-free repository, before running 'yum install xorg-x11-drv-psb'?
I did that all correctly as far as I can tell (for both F13 and F14).
You're not running the x86-64 Fedora, are you? (I only build the
driver
for ix86 at present, up till now only 32-bit systems have had GMA 500
graphics).
I do have F12 x86_64 on my desktop but this testing is on my netbook.
I think PCLOS probably has the psb driver out of the box, there would
be
no legal or technical restriction on them doing this, and a Mandriva
package of the driver is available which they would likely source from.
OK.
Will test the new Beta later and report back . .
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
10:31 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 14:39 +1000, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> xorg-x11-drv-psb should be available for F14 now. Did you make
sure to
> follow the instructions to enable the RPM Fusion repositories, including
> the non-free repository, before running 'yum install xorg-x11-drv-psb'?
I did that all correctly as far as I can tell (for both F13 and F14).
You may want to try a few times, it seems like the driver has made it to
some Fusion mirrors but not to others yet (it seems some Fusion mirrors
update very infrequently).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
4958
days inactive
4966
days old
21 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Adam Miller -
Adam Williamson -
John Obbele -
Philip Rhoades -
Ron Leach