Ubuntu 10.04 LTS - Lucid Lynx

Status
Not open for further replies.
To avoid all the XP startup nonsense my work laptop has (virus scanning, software inventory, updates blablabla, I have gotten into the habit of using suspend. It even holds the suspend on battery power thru the weekend. Monday I turn on the machine and in 1 second I'm working; I tried this on 9.04 and it also works. I plan on using suspend more often on my home machine. It really saves on boot time.
 
I use Standy (XP) and Suspend (Ubuntu) almost exclusively too. I'd be curious to know the power useage during suspend - I think it's set to S3 in bios. Although I haven't tried VM's yet so I'm still dual-booting back and forth - in which case the faster boot times will be be welcome.

Edit:

Quote:
If you worry about the power consumption: Our measurements have shown that the power consumption in S3 mode is almost exactly the same as if the PC is shut down normally. In worst case the consumption was at 1.8 Watts compared to 1.1 Watts when the PC was shut down. In most cases the consumption was below the treshhold which could be measured by us at all. Standalone devices like CD players, TVs or amplifiers usually need much more power in standby mode. So the S3 mode offers best conditions to be used in media PCs! It is supported by Windows® OS since Win 98b.

http://tvtool.info/FlashHelp/S3_Power_mode.htm
 
I'm also a fan of suspend. The next release of Ubuntu which is due in about 3-4 weeks is supposed to switch to the ext4 filesystem by default. I forget what the mechanics were, but one of the benefits was supposed to be faster boot times.
 
I elected to install 9.04 on ext4 and it has been rock solid. And it booted a lot faster than 8.04, but that was partially because 9.04 is installed on a faster hard drive.
 
Originally Posted By: NJC
I elected to install 9.04 on ext4 and it has been rock solid. And it booted a lot faster than 8.04, but that was partially because 9.04 is installed on a faster hard drive.


I'm running 9.04 as well, but I wimped out and stuck with ext3. :)

I'll jump in with ext4 when the actual release comes out in a few weeks.
 
Running 8.04LTS on 2 different Servers. Look at this 151 days no reboot....

Operating system Ubuntu Linux 8.04.2
Webmin version 1.480
Time on system Thu Oct 1 06:15:08 2009
Kernel and CPU Linux 2.6.24-23-server on i686
System uptime 151 days, 18 hours, 11 minutes
CPU load averages 0.00 (1 min) 0.00 (5 mins) 0.00 (15 mins)
Real memory 3.96 GB total, 257.58 MB used

Virtual memory 9.41 GB total, 100 kB used

Local disk space 681.91 GB total, 216.24 GB used
 
Originally Posted By: Not the Autorx Frank
It hasn't requested a kernel patch using apt-get update or upgrade as of yet. I guess the version I updated to originally was up to date.


Eh? I've noticed a couple of kernel updates over the past few months. I'm running the 32-bit 9.04 desktop, but I believe desktop and server use the same kernel.
 
I think it's because he's running the LTS version 8.04. I didn't get kernel updates either.
 
Originally Posted By: NJC
I think it's because he's running the LTS version 8.04. I didn't get kernel updates either.


Ah...my bad.
 
I am pretty sure there were minor updates to the kernel for even the LTS; especially from 8.04 -> 8.04.1 -> 8.04.2 -> 8.04.3.

I *thought* that the server kernel was different, if even only in how it was compiled. This may have made whatever updates were issued for the desktop kernel unnecessary for server use.
 
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
Originally Posted By: Not the Autorx Frank
It hasn't requested a kernel patch using apt-get update or upgrade as of yet. I guess the version I updated to originally was up to date.


Eh? I've noticed a couple of kernel updates over the past few months. I'm running the 32-bit 9.04 desktop, but I believe desktop and server use the same kernel.


"Kernel and CPU Linux 2.6.24-23-server on i686" tells me that there is a separate server kernel. Why compile the kernel with a bunch of bells and whistles (and modules and flags!) that you don't need, like bluetooth, sound, etc. for a server?
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
Originally Posted By: Not the Autorx Frank
It hasn't requested a kernel patch using apt-get update or upgrade as of yet. I guess the version I updated to originally was up to date.


Eh? I've noticed a couple of kernel updates over the past few months. I'm running the 32-bit 9.04 desktop, but I believe desktop and server use the same kernel.


"Kernel and CPU Linux 2.6.24-23-server on i686" tells me that there is a separate server kernel. Why compile the kernel with a bunch of bells and whistles (and modules and flags!) that you don't need, like bluetooth, sound, etc. for a server?


Yep. Same kernel version, but definitely not all the same modules enabled by default.

I just downloaded 9.10 beta and installed it on my laptop for grins (with ext4). It's now fetching 132mb of updates and 9.10beta has only been out for a day. hehe Already found one bug and reported it (flaky smartd reporting a healthy hard disk as having lots of errors). Boots super fast though.
 
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
I just downloaded 9.10 beta and installed it on my laptop for grins (with ext4).

I tried Alpha 6 but no network connection. Also filed a bug ... but I think I'll wait until released to install again.
 
I couldn't wait for final 9.10 release. Seems faster than 9.04, but I have it on a slightly faster hard drive. Here's the default font (Serif) rendering in Firefox 3.5

Screenshot-Computers-BobIsTheOilGuy.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top