Difference between revisions of "Talk:Maximizing performance"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Remove closed discussions.)
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
"''Things kinda slow? Buy more ram!''" is really not the kind of advice anyone is looking for. And the CPU section (undervolting, etc.) isn't related to speed improvements, except fan control. This section is sorely lacking a link/howto to/for BFS.<br>
+
== Mkfs does not work ==
--[[User:Gog|Gog]] 20:36, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
+
This doesn't work:
 +
mkfs.xfs -l internal,lazy-count=1 size=128m -d agcount=2 /dev/sdxx
 +
--[[User:Jkd.luca|Jkd.luca]] 17:21, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
  
:To my knowledge keeping the CPU cool does not improve performance so I removed this part. I also removed the introduction about RAM. So, problems solved ?
+
== The desktop switcheroo ==
:[[User:Changaco|Changaco]] 11:25, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I'm not an expert, but doesn't overheating decrease performance? If it is, then preventing overheating should count as maximizing performance. If not, then the section is indeed irrelevant. I found this article saying it does for pentium 4 processors: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/p4-temp.html . But as I said I'm no expert, so what do you think?
+
::--Rttommy
+
 
+
:::I'm not an expert either, maybe we should undo my change but edit in order not to present this as an absolute truth.
+
:::[[User:Changaco|Changaco]] 14:13, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::I think that fan control should be left in since it's generally considered to be related with overclocking. And another thing: let's keep the article's title in tandem with the heading's cases... "Maximizing Performance" or "Maximizing '''p'''erformance"? the second one matches the headings...
+
:::--[[User:Gog|Gog]] 19:22, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::I was wondering if we should create a script that get's the top CPU value of top and let the user choose to pause it or continue running so the system doesn't literally freeze up and become unusuable until a reboot is required, this happend to me so I was wondering if anyone else feels that this is necessary.
+
:::--[[User:littlebear|littlebear]] 13:37, 6 February 2009 (EST)
+
----
+
  
 
Section "The desktop switcheroo" does not make sense. [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 16:35, 7 November 2009 (EST)
 
Section "The desktop switcheroo" does not make sense. [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 16:35, 7 November 2009 (EST)
 +
: Light weight desktop does improve performance of running app. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  
----
+
== LZO for btrfs ==
 
+
I read about LZO compression and space_cache for btrfs lately: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=btrfs_space_cache
The section on btrfs talks about the libcrc32c module, but confusingly lists modules that don't seem related to btrfs. I think the zlib module is necessary, but have not yet figured out which others are or are not. [[User:Nitmd|Nitmd]] 23:27, 14 May 2010 (EDT)
+
--[[User:Longint|Longint]] 18:53, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
 
+
----
+
What is with the advice about glxgears framerates? "less than 300fps"... It syncs with the monitors vertical refresh rate, meaning it will only go ~60fps (or whatever your refresh rate is). [[User:PIMPinator|PIMPinator]] 11:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
+

Revision as of 09:40, 8 April 2013

Mkfs does not work

This doesn't work:

mkfs.xfs -l internal,lazy-count=1 size=128m -d agcount=2 /dev/sdxx

--Jkd.luca 17:21, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

The desktop switcheroo

Section "The desktop switcheroo" does not make sense. manolo 16:35, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Light weight desktop does improve performance of running app. -- Fengchao (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

LZO for btrfs

I read about LZO compression and space_cache for btrfs lately: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=btrfs_space_cache --Longint 18:53, 15 June 2011 (EDT)