What would make F16xfce slower than cold molasses, on a machine where F14gnome kept up normal speed? Firefox is not running, nor is Opera.
Am Dienstag, den 27.12.2011, 19:15 +0000 schrieb Beartooth:
What would make F16xfce slower than cold molasses, on a machine where F14gnome kept up normal speed? Firefox is not running, nor is Opera.
Is the machine just slow or is it busy? How about checking with 'top'?
Regards, Christoph
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:03:51 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 27.12.2011, 19:15 +0000 schrieb Beartooth:
What would make F16xfce slower than cold molasses, on a machine where F14gnome kept up normal speed? Firefox is not running, nor is Opera.
Is the machine just slow or is it busy? How about checking with 'top'?
Good point. I don't yet have my nice little monitoring app on the bottom panel, or I'd've glanced at that. Here's what I see.
~$ top
top - 15:36:08 up 1 day, 1:18, 11 users, load average: 4.82, 4.78, 4.54 Tasks: 182 total, 1 running, 179 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie Cpu(s): 69.9%us, 14.8%sy, 0.4%ni, 14.5%id, 0.2%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2968592k total, 2771740k used, 196852k free, 151484k buffers Swap: 5079036k total, 24544k used, 5054492k free, 2007656k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4251 btth2 20 0 54716 12m 10m S 9.5 0.4 65:18.68 gtk- gnash 18012 btth2 20 0 2872 1084 804 R 3.8 0.0 0:00.03 top 4376 btth2 20 0 54272 13m 10m S 1.9 0.5 12:06.17 gtk- gnash 32356 root 20 0 104m 31m 18m S 1.9 1.1 40:22.77 Xorg 1 root 20 0 5604 3244 1700 S 0.0 0.1 0:01.58 systemd 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.01 kthreadd 3 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:07.58 ksoftirqd/0 5 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kworker/ u:0 6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/0 7 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.79 watchdog/0 8 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 cpuset 9 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper 10 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kdevtmpfs 11 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 netns 12 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.35 sync_supers
I don't know what that gtk-gnash is. I don't have any moving images moving anywhere.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Beartooth beartooth@comcast.net wrote:
I don't know what that gtk-gnash is. I don't have any moving images moving anywhere.
It's the Free, Open Source Software re-implementation of Adobe's flash player. https://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/
I've also seen Gnash chew up CPU on my computers. I usually uninstall it and just use Adobe's flash player for Linux, but I'm also normally on 32-bit Linux, where Adobe's Linux plugin is more stable and better-maintained. I've tried the 64-bit one, but only briefly. Adobe's support for the 64-bit plugin on Linux has historically been spotty, particularly with security updates.
If you're interested in improving the Gnash software and helping the Gnash project, you could try to narrow down precisely what websites you visited that triggered the bug, and then file a bug.
- Ken
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 18:41, Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com wrote:
I've also seen Gnash chew up CPU on my computers. I usually uninstall it and just use Adobe's flash player for Linux, but I'm also normally on 32-bit Linux, where Adobe's Linux plugin is more stable and better-maintained. I've tried the 64-bit one, but only briefly. Adobe's support for the 64-bit plugin on Linux has historically been spotty, particularly with security updates.
The comment on Adobe flash is old news. The updates for the 64 bit plugin has been slow, but it has been more stable than the 32 bit version (no nspluginwrapper hence no npviewer.bin). Starting this year, Adobe even provides a yum repo for the 64 bit plugin.
-
Beartooth -
Christoph Wickert -
Ken Dreyer -
Suvayu Ali