lubuntu-qa team mailing list archive

[Greg Faith <gregfaith@xxxxxxxxx>]

That is correct another command that would show if pae or not

sudo lshw -C processor

If you see pae in the list it is pae compatible.

nm_geo Greg

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 3:17 PM, alan c <aeclist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> My PC (pentium II)
> =========================================================
> grep pae /proc/cpuinfo
> flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr  pae  mce cx8  mtrr pge mca
> cmov  pse36  mmx  fxsr up
> =========================================================
>
> So it looks like it is pae compatible??!
> So I am testing a low resource machine, but it is pae compatible, correct?
>
> alan cocks
>
> On 04/03/12 21:51, alan c wrote:
> > (new team member here......)
> >
> > I had a Pentium II - 400 PC  holding up some shelves (literally) and
> > heard the call for low spec PCS.
> >
> > Am I correct in thinking that the PII chipset will necessarily be non
> > pae? And is the objective of this sort of test that the Lubuntu kernel
> > is pae compatible, and does it work on the ancient PCs?
> >
> > My PII 400Mhz Pc was running Ubuntu 7.04 (and win 98) using 281MB RAM
> > total, and I reduced that to
> > 128MB (PC133, CL3) ram for the test.
> >
> > I used  a 32 bit  alternate CD Lubuntu beta1, and the CD self check in
> > the PC passed ok, verifying also the CD drive.
> >
> > I used manual directed install, continuing the PC existing
> > configuration as a dual boot with Windows 98. Wired ethernet.
> >
> > The install went quite normally as far as I could see.
> >
> > This install process took about 2 hours 10 minutes.
> >
> > The PC then booted ok, took just over 3 minutes to get to login
> > request and a further 5 or so minutes to show a completed desktop.
> > Subsequent startups might possibly go faster, I have not yet tried that.
> >
> > However, a very significant thing occurred soon after startup and this
> > was that, for a solid two and half hours, the PC was almost literally
> > un usable because of a constant activity.
> >
> > My guess is that it was maybe an indexing of updates status, I am not
> > sure. However, I managed to view task manager and for the whole of
> > this period the CPU as maxed at 100%, the memory indication was almost
> > constant at 109MB out of 116MB indicated, and the hard drive access
> > light was full on with obvious continuous hard drive activity.
> >
> > After the two and half hours it fell away and the quiescent values are
> > cpu 3%, memory 53MB of 116MB.
> >
> > A rapid  and continuous movement of the mouse cursor takes the cpu up
> > to near 30% - this is the low resource machine speaking of course.
> >
> > What struck me was how impractical it would be to attempt an install
> > in this machine with any normal expectations of the post install
> > situation, or maybe other tasks also.
> > I have not yet attempted updates but it would sensibly be an overnight
> > job.
> >
> > I wonder if there is a way of reducing the priority of the update (?
> > if that is what it is) indexing here?  Or maybe giving (me) some
> > control over when the indexing is to be done, or its priority.
> > Intuitively, the machine is not usable at this stage. So, many users
> > would simply write it off. I do not know if  more ram will help, it is
> > something  for later?
> >
> > I have not done further checks such as confirm that the swap partition
> > is in place and apparently normal, but the install configuration
> > seemed ok. Swap is (should be) 370MB.
> >
> > Summary so far: it does install ok, but the resources are totally
> > consumed for hours  initially following install and re start.
> >
> > Other timings after the initial dust has settled:
> >
> > File manager appears in 13 seconds (cpu 100%)
> > web browser chrome 1 min 42 initial  startup and 1 min subsequent.
> > Most of this time seems to be spent getting the Google sign up pages
> > ready, because the homepage (now set to www.google.co.uk) refreshes in
> > 6 seconds by itself. If Google  encumber chrome browser with a
> > crapware sign up log in page, then in a PC like this is it a lead
> > balloon. Of course, maybe the user wants to sign in, but this is a low
> > resource PC and could be on a low speed network etc. (?)  I dont know
> > how firefox runs in these conditions yet.
> >
> > I do not know enough about chrome browser to know yet how to make it
> > remember  that I do *not* want to be asked to sign in.
> >
> > enough for tonight.
> >
> > More I hope anon.
> >
> > Comments please?
>
>
> --
> alan cocks
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa
> Post to     : lubuntu-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>