[PC-BSD Testing] Laptop Works Better with UFS + Softupdates
kris at pcbsd.com
Mon Aug 18 07:08:19 PDT 2008
milanisko k wrote:
> Reading your post, I have to complain a bit about running PC-Bsd on an older
> As far as the filesystem is concerned, the ZFS was causing much trouble on
> my laptop (Fujitsu-Siemens E series Lifebook, P4 1.7GHz, 2GB DDR ram, ATA
> 60GB, Intel motherboard, integrated i855 graphics 1400x1050) - it used to
> crash while installing the system (I was trying to install it three times).
> So I have switched to UFS+Journaling and haven't observed the trouble any
ZFS is still considered somewhat experimental by the FreeBSD guys, and
it really is more for high-end systems with 4GB+ of RAM. I expect that
most users will be happy with UFS+S or UFS+J if they need it. ZFS may
come in handy if somebody wants to do a quick install to a high-end
server though :)
> However, the graphics causes a lot of trouble - the performance is very
> poor. Furthermore, the system used to crash while the _Intel_ driver was
> used by the X11. I'm going to fiddle with the X11 default _i810_ driver
> settings a bit now (CPU utilisation doesn't drop below 40% while "idle"
> running just few opened windows with all "extras" disabled: news reader,
> Opera, Konsole + top)...
> On the other hand, the system was running for about 3 hours on a PC
> utilising a Core2Duo Cpu, a Nvidia 6600 pro (128MB) graphis and 2GB of DDR2
> Ram on a 1280x1024 resolution with every little desktop "extra" switched on
> very smoothly - the Cpu utilisation has been low, too (up to 20% while
> "idle", depending on the windows count), frame-rates of the Plasma between
> 30-60fps with multiple transparent windows running simultaneously. It looked
> very nice, indeed.
> I must say, the system looks really great on a "newer" hardware...
The compositing / 3D effects in KDE4 look great, but still could use
some optimization. Take a look here:
More information about the Testing