From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 27 05:11:49 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566FE16A4B3 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 05:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0021D43FDD for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 05:11:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from humphie@ucip.boyko.org) Received: from revelation.home.net ([81.97.165.113]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.comESMTP <20031027131145.UAMJ21223.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@revelation.home.net> for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:11:45 +0000 From: Andrew Humphries To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200310271252.h9RCq1C22058@anon.securenym.net> References: <20031024214427.22367.qmail@web20709.mail.yahoo.com> <1067042620.38004.1429.camel@verdammt.falcotronic.net> <200310271252.h9RCq1C22058@anon.securenym.net> Message-Id: <1067260100.6768.2.camel@revelation.home.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:08:21 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 Subject: Re: Linux port..... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:11:49 -0000 On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 13:51, C. Ulrich wrote: > On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:43, andi payn wrote: > > 4. While running a similar set of services, FreeBSD may be using less > > background processing time. Or maybe not. I definitely see significantly > > lower CPU usage (idling under X, FreeBSD shows about 2-10% CPU, linux > > about 15-35%). However, this may just be an artifact of linux's > > notoriously bad reporting, or the fact that I'm using the O(1) kernel > > and preemptible kernel patches, or maybe something stupid some GNOME > > applet is doing because I configured it wrong under linux; who knows.... > > Check with top to see which processes are using the CPU. For me, 9 times > out of 10, it's the X server itself taking up cycles for doing nothing. > It won't do it right after a fresh boot, but some program along the way > usually triggers the siphoning of the CPU usage. > > Charles Ulrich I have found this an awful lot whilst running X under Linux. After a fresh boot, with nothing running, it works nicely. Give it a couple open applications, and even when nothing is running except X itself, it will take up extra CPU time and physical memory space until freshly booted again. Regards, -- Andrew Humphries