Re: (clug-talk) Is knoppix faster?

[Jeffrey Clement]

If you find it runs faster that's pretty good since Knoppix it isn't really running from RAM. It's hitting the CD to load every binary and there is some pretty bad lag each time your start up an anything. Presumably a HD distro should be a lot faster. However, that said, I bet the reason Knoppix is faster than Mandrake is knoppix doesn't consume all your ram with a tonne of server utilities like Mandrake would (ie. Apache, MySQL, Webmin, .....). Mandrake's slowness probably comes from the fact the system is swapping like crazy in order to run anything.

Jeff

Roy Souther wrote:

I installed MDK 9.0 and MDK 8.2 on a P233 with 64 MB RAM and have booted Knoppix 3.1 on it and I am happy to say it runs KDE3 and OpenOffice great in just 64MB RAM. I have been playing with it some and it seams to run faster then both versions of Mandrake that are on the hard drives. I know that the system will run faster from RAM then from the hard drive but could it be that a full graphical Linux desktop may actually run faster in only 64 MB of RAM? I would think that a system with a lot of RAM could do this but not in just 64 MB.

Has anyone else found that it runs faster on a system with limited amount of RAM? Could this be a Debian advantage? If I installed Knoppix to the hard drive would I find it running faster then Mandrake?

Linux and Open Source projects never fail to astonish me.

Roy Souther <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.SiliconTao.com <http://www.SiliconTao.com>

Changing the way people do business.