Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

lupusarcanus · 2011-04-12 14:55:54

Hello!

Recently I revived my old HP Pavilion zv6000 by buying a $5 charger off of Amazon. It works quite well, surprisingly.

Specs:
- AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz CPU
- ATI Xpress 200M w/ 128 MB dedicated VRAM VGA
- 512 MB DDR RAM 333 MHz
- 80 GiB 4200 RPM HDD

Now, right when I got it I installed Arch. I used x86_64, JFS for / and XFCE as my DE. This combination didn't turn out very well. I would run out of usable RAM all the time and would start swapping like crazy, which would eventually lock up my computer and force me to hard reboot. During one of these reboots, I lost several files. Also, I would always have 100% CPU usage in any file operations. From un/archiving things, to just downloading big files, I would always hit 100% CPU usage, reducing my computer to an unusable state. I even tried the 2.6.38 (with the 200-line 'miracle' patch) kernel out of the testing repository, and while this did help with multi-tasking a little bit, my computer was still pretty unusable, sadly. I couldn't go on having it do this. I needed it to be in a semi-usable state.

Anyway, I installed the OEM Windows XP back on it (Ugh...) and it runs really good. Downloading files takes no CPU, and I have enough RAM to function pretty well with Firefox. Unfortunately, I prefer Linux much more then Windows, and I only installed Windows as a stop-gap solution until I figured out my re-installation game-plan. The problem is, I don't know what was wrong with my setup in the first place. I was thinking about falling back to i686 this time, and I will probably use LXDE as my DE instead of XFCE. This should cut down on the RAM usage. I was considering using JFS again, but I have lost my loyalty to it as of late because of the aforementioned problems.

So, I wanted to consult people smarter than I am on this issue. The Arch community seems very helpful. I would like to complement you guys on your fine wiki and distribution. Ever since I've used Arch (about a year ago), I have stuck with it. I am just having a difficult time getting this old-ish machine to run well. I am not expecting too awful much, all I really want to be able to do on it is browse the web with Firefox comfortably, maybe a bit of C/++ coding with Geany, edit some documents using OO.org and listen to music. Kinda like a netbook. An 8 pound netbook.

All recommendations are welcome. Thank you!

Inxsible · 2011-04-12 15:04:06

OS: 64 bit Arch
WM :Openbox or LXDE or Fluxbox or any tiler would do too
filesystem : stick with ext4. maybe reiserfs on /var
file manager : coreutils or if you cannot live without gui - pcmanfm or xfe
compositing : nothing more than xcompmgr
browser: firefox or chromium. But your best bet would be jumanji or surf
editor : leafpad or geany for coding
office : use google docs. OOo is going to be way to heavy
music player : deadbeef

The above is what I used on the following machine and it ran pretty well (except for xcompmgr)
Pentium III, 1GHz
256 MB RAM
nvidia 32 MB graphics card
40 GB hard drive

JokerBoy · 2011-04-12 15:25:17

64 bit on a Pentrium III? since when? I had a P3 too..

32bit Arch, ext4 for / formatted with -m 1. use a WM, maybe a tiling one like awesome, dwm, xmonad, etc. if not, openbox, fluxbox.. use kernel26-ck, or kernel26-bfs from aur. pcmanfm or ranger, vim, abiword, ncmpcpp (with mpd).

Last edited by JokerBoy (2011-04-12 17:28:22)

lupusarcanus · 2011-04-12 15:28:48

Thank you for your suggestions and quick reply Inxsible. I am surprised that you have that machine running well! That gives me some definite hope that I can get this machine running well.

Google Docs is interesting. I did not think of that. I'm not too big on 'cloud' computing, but I do suppose OO.o had gotten hefty lately. I will look into using alternatives to OO.o. Would Abiwod and Gnumeric be a good choice, or would they still be too heavy, do you think?

As far as the file manager goes, I could probably use the command line fairly well, although it's always nice to have a GUI file manager around for certain things. I'll look into XFE. I liked PCManFM the last time I tried it, and it seemed to be very light. I like the fact that it can manage my desktop too.

JFS seemed to perform poorly for me. I will likely follow your suggestion and use ext4.

I really like Firefox, and it'd be very difficult for me to not use it anymore. It's the one thing that I'd have a hard time giving up. This computer will be 90% web browsing, so Firefox is really important to me.

Leafpad looks solid, nice and lightweight. I like Geany as well, having used it a bit lately it seems very fast and lightweight, but has all the features I care about in a development environment.

I'm not too sure about my music player. I will certainly consider deadbeef. I didn't look at it too closely, though it looks really good from what I saw.

-Andrew

jlindgren · 2011-04-12 15:36:44

Firefox is a memory hog (as are most mainline browsers). On my laptop Firefox has three tabs open, has only been running for half an hour, and is already using 180 MB of RAM. Chrome and Opera are even worse. For a lightweight alternative I would suggest Midori -- it's not as feature-rich but it's fast and works on most sites once you set it to identify as Safari. I use Midori on my old desktop, which has only 320 MB of RAM and no swap space, with no problems. If you must run Firefox, I would recommend using "top" to find out what other processes are using a lot of memory, and get rid of the ones you don't need. Within top, press Shift-F, Q, then Enter to sort the list by memory usage.

jlindgren · 2011-04-12 15:41:04

Audacious is also good for a lightweight music player. Though, as one of the developers, I'm biased.

lupusarcanus · 2011-04-12 15:43:22

Hi JokerBoy, thanks for your reply!

I was thinking about using 32-bit this time around, because my RAM usage was one of the biggest problems I was having with my previous install. It would be nice to use some of my favorite 32-bit applications again without multilib. Then again, the Athlon 64 is indeed a 64-bit CPU, and going back to 32-bit would disable some of the enhancements it has, I'm still not sure about this.

Tiling window managers don't peak my interest too much -- I suppose I have been indoctrinated into preferring more 'conventional' window management. It does seem that the *boxes are my best choice for this computer.

Interesting note about using a different kernel. I used 2.6.38, as I said before, and experienced no real improvement over 2.6.37. I may try kernel26-ck, since it seems to be geared towards desktop usage. I had no troubles with installing my own custom kernels or building different ones on my previous install

Vim is nice. I like it, although I like gVim much more because it makes it easier to use and fits in with my usage more.

I'm unsure about MPD-based things; I have never dealt with it.

-Andrew

lupusarcanus · 2011-04-12 15:52:17

Thanks for your input, jlindgreen.

I have unfortunately come to realize this fact. Firefox does hog memory up. However, I've used it for so long and grown so accustomed to it I can't operate very well without it. Firefox is, and I regret having to say this, the very last thing I'd want to give up. I have, however, been trying to get this next install to be much more RAM-efficient, so I will try to identify sources of RAM usage and cut it down as much as possible. The good news is that this machine is going to be used to browse the web primarily, so Firefox will have most of the free resources to use for itself.

- EDIT: I'll take a look at Audacious.

-Andrew

Last edited by lupusarcanus (2011-04-12 15:53:46)

.:B:. · 2011-04-12 16:34:09

Inxsible wrote:

OS: 64 bit Arch
WM :Openbox or LXDE or Fluxbox or any tiler would do too
filesystem : stick with ext4. maybe reiserfs on /var
file manager : coreutils or if you cannot live without gui - pcmanfm or xfe
compositing : nothing more than xcompmgr
browser: firefox or chromium. But your best bet would be jumanji or surf
editor : leafpad or geany for coding
office : use google docs. OOo is going to be way to heavy
music player : deadbeef

Don't suggest a 64 bit OS just because his CPU is 64 bit... 64 bit has a bigger memory footprint and with 512 MB of RAM you need every MB you can get.

I wouldn't do compositing either.

lupusarcanus · 2011-04-12 16:57:43

Interesting thoughts, .:B:.

About how much of a bigger memory footprint would a 64-bit operating system have do you suppose? You're absolutely right -- I need every MB I can get.

I'm probably not going to use compositing so that the GPU can be used for other, more important things.

Thanks again guys.

Inxsible · 2011-04-12 17:03:51

JokerBoy wrote:

64 bit on a Pentrium III? since when? I had an P3 too..
32bit Arch, ext4 for / formatted with -m 1. use a WM, maybe a tiling one like awesome, dwm, xmonad, etc. if not, openbox, fluxbox.. use kernel26-ck, or kernel26-bfs from aur. pcmanfm or ranger, vim, abiword, ncmpcpp (with mpd).

Whoops yeah that was an oversight... I wanted to recommend 64 bit but I was using 32 bit.

@B
I wasn't using compositing, and I would have about 35 % RAM usage. Starting firefox though would shoot it to 70-75%. and all this in 256MB. A 64 bit OS would definitely take more memory, but he still has an additional 256MB on my old machine. But yeah, 32 bit should be fine as well since as you mentioned, you are using the computer only for web browsing primarily.

the sad clown · 2011-04-12 18:08:41

The suggestion to use 32bit is the right course of action, and is the same reason your WinXP install worked so smoothly (it's 32bit also). Another thread in this forum tried to answer the question of how much more memory 64bit uses, and the conclusion was about a 25-30% increase over 32bit, and this got worse with the more GUI you use.

Using lighter apps will also help, but you should notice an immediate RAM use improvement by switching architectures.

lupusarcanus · 2011-04-12 18:33:35

Thank you for your informative replay, the sad clown. I may go with i686 if it's that significant.

Mr.Elendig · 2011-04-12 19:31:05

I would strongly suggest throwing some more ram into that laptop, it's the most limiting factor in that setup. (web pages loves to eat ram....)

the sad clown · 2011-04-12 21:37:10

Mr.Elendig wrote:

I would strongly suggest throwing some more ram into that laptop, it's the most limiting factor in that setup. (web pages loves to eat ram....)

Agreed. I almost said the same thing myself.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi … rchInDesc=

Last edited by the sad clown (2011-04-12 21:40:52)

stqn · 2011-04-12 21:43:22

On my previous laptop my ram usage almost never exceeded 500MB... Even with heavy Firefox usage (more than 20 tabs...) It was an Xfce 4.6 32 bit install.

Right now on my Xfce 4.8 desktop, RAM usage is 560MB with Firefox 3.6.16 (19 tabs), aMule, Transmission, Code::Blocks, Liferea, Pidgin, deadbeef, and a terminal. With a 1920x1200 screen, compositing enabled. So I think 512MB + Xfce is a possibility .

You might want to set swappiness to 0 to avoid unnecessary swapping.

Edit: my laptop had 1GB of RAM though, which left some for kernel buffers... I don't know how it would have behaved with 512MB only.

Last edited by stqn (2011-04-12 21:47:38)

lupusarcanus · 2011-04-12 21:49:44

Hey Community!

I just reinstalled Arch based on some of the great suggestions here. I went with:

-64 bit
-ext4
-LXDE
-Audacious
-no swap

Runs great! Firefox with 5 tabs open, LXTerminal, Audacious, Transmission-GTK and Thunderbird, I have 100 MB RAM left free. CPU usage during file ops has normalized to a tolerable level. In my experience, JFS uses more CPU then ext4. I may add this to the talk page on the wiki for JFS. I appreciate all the replies! I think XFCE was too heavy on my system RAM-wise, and JFS just wasn't working out. And boy, LXDE is blazing fast!

My computer is back!! I don't have to run free -m every two seconds worrying about my RAM now.

I dunno if I want to flat out say this is solved because people are still posting great info, but as far as the basics go (LXDE, ext4, 64 bit) I am set.

Thanks!!

the sad clown · 2011-04-12 21:53:58

Here is the thread on RAM usage comparison between 32 and 64 bit I mentioned earlier if you are interested:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=873251

And go ahead and mark it solved if you have your solution.

Last edited by the sad clown (2011-04-12 21:56:36)

tomk · 2011-04-12 22:28:01

lupusarcanus, I have the same laptop, except with a Compaq logo on it.

First thing I did was get more RAM....

Arch Linux

#1 2011-04-12 14:55:54

Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#2 2011-04-12 15:04:06

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#3 2011-04-12 15:25:17

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#4 2011-04-12 15:28:48

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#5 2011-04-12 15:36:44

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#6 2011-04-12 15:41:04

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#7 2011-04-12 15:43:22

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#8 2011-04-12 15:52:17

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#9 2011-04-12 16:34:09

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#10 2011-04-12 16:57:43

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#11 2011-04-12 17:03:51

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#12 2011-04-12 18:08:41

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#13 2011-04-12 18:33:35

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#14 2011-04-12 19:31:05

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#15 2011-04-12 21:37:10

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#16 2011-04-12 21:43:22

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#17 2011-04-12 21:49:44

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#18 2011-04-12 21:53:58

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

#19 2011-04-12 22:28:01

Re: Reinstalling Arch. Need suggestions for older laptop.

Board footer