lubuntu-qa team mailing list archive

[alan c <aeclist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It looks as if even my PII is more modern than I thought, it is pae
compatible, so it is not good for these particular tests.

I think I have another PC a gateway P5 120 buried deeper in the
shelving system,  however it is noted as 43MB ram  and I do not know
if I have any suitable to get up to 128MB ram, or even if that PC
works. Will try.

On 04/03/12 22:39, Greg Faith wrote:
> 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
>>
> 


-- 
alan cocks