How often do you experience system crashes?

[amethyst]

It has become relatively common to me. Worst of all, in most cases you have to do a switch off because nothing else works. I think probably mostly related to the newer browsers of today. My guess is memory issues but not all. Don't know if everything can be blamed on the browsers either. Now I wonder if Puppy as an operating system in itself has become more unreliable.

[peebee]

Never!
Running LxPupSc32 with Chromium-114 on Dell Inc. Precision WorkStation T5400
2 * Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5450 @ 3.00GHz (4 cores)
RAM Total: 7955 MB | Used: 1309 MB (16.4%) | Actual Used: 514 MB (6.4%)

[amethyst]

Back using Tahr64. Seems to be the least demanding on my old machine. Running well with Palemoon. Hopefully fewer crashes. Next step is Windows 7

[bigpup]

The last time I had crashing issues, it was caused by computer hardware failure.
Actually turned out to be a connection to the motherboard was corroded and several others had worked loose.
Plus the thing needed a good cleaning inside. Cooling fan was almost full of dust bunnies!
Removed corrosion, cleaned all connections, unplugged all connections and re-plugged in all.
That fixed it.

This is not being caused by Puppy Linux, unless you are using one of the versions that is not completely finished.
The ones in Alpha, Beta, RC release status.

Those could still have bugs.

Giving the specs of the computer would give us a clue as to what could be happening?

[amethyst]

This is not being caused by Puppy Linux, unless you are using one of the versions that is not completely finished.
The ones in Alpha, Beta, RC release status.

Those could still have bugs.

Giving the specs of the computer would give us a clue as to what could be happening?

2GB Ram / 2GHz CPU, Duo Centrino + 500MB swap file (which hardly ever is used it seems). I'm only using official Puppy releases. Been having many more freeze ups since using 64-bit Puppys. Think I'm going to fall back on Bionic 32-bit and run an older Firefox version. The latest Firefox's are very HEAVY.

[Marv]

In my current kennel, Never ever!

My hardware is pretty much circa 2012, with a couple of slightly newer Bay Trail desktops. All run SSDs, Atheros wifi cards on the laptops and probably Realtek ethernet on the desktops. RAM varies 2 to 6 Gb, Pups are all frugal installs, LxPupSc64 on one users Bay Trail desktop replacing an incredibly long lived X-Slacko install on that. I'd say that one averages a reboot once a year or two and I only get called in when websites outrun the browser and I have to update. My Bay Trail box and all 6 of the 2nd gen i5 based laptops run LxPupSc64, VoidPup64, fossapup64 9.5, F96-CE, jammypup64, or bookworm64 according to whim and user.

All PCManFM and mostly LXDE with drives-on-desktop where feasible.

Stock kernels in some, kernels as recent as 6.3.7 in others. The Bay Trails use all of 14 watts running flat out so all they get is a dpms screensaver. The laptops are all set up to lidsuspend, as much to protect to protect the keyboards as to save power and get them off the network when not in use.

Browsers are all portable at this point, chromium based, and current versions or one back at the oldest. Most machines have Brave, Slimjet, and un-googled chromium in the tray.

When I was learning the ins and outs of usrmerge, I managed to crash jammypup64 a few times but that is a ydrv/non-savefile install so very forgiving of idiot/operator error.

My experience with the circa 2005 or earlier pre-I3 or I5 processor laptops was more mixed and I have moved those machines on. They generally were happiest with Tahr64 but toward the end browser use could quite bog the machines down. Used hardware is so cheap I tend to replace things (like troublesome wifi cards with the kernel supported Atheros ones) rather than muck with dodgy drivers.

[pp4mnklinux]

Years ago... today working fantastic.

It could by my OS, it could be my knowledge, but NO CRASHES.

(I always suspend... never shutdown )

[wizard]

@amethyst

I know you've been running that hardware for quite a while, based on my experience with the same spec machines, it's the 2gb ram limitation that is causing issues. Some computers do better with 2gb than others, but If at all possible you should upgrade to 4gb.

wizard

wizard's rule #12 "All computer hardware is not created equal"

[amethyst]

This laptop definitely does better with 32-bit Puppys. I'll use 64-bit in the very rare cases I need it, like watching DRM streaming content (which requires a 64-bit browser). 64-bit not worthwhile otherwise on this machine. I am now using Bionic 32-bit and running an older Firefox (version 81). Already seeing a a difference for the better.

[mikeslr]

The only crash that I recall having was when I tried to run Bionicpup64-revival on a Asus Laptop with 1Gb. RAM does matter especially when running web-browsers which are RAM-hogs. Perhaps Tahrpup64 with it less RAM demanding components while running older, less RAM demanding web-browsers you can get by with 2Gbs. But as a practical matter with newer 64-bit Puppies you need at least 4 Gb.

Today, upgrading RAM for older laptops is much less expensive than it use to be. [Supply & Demand: with most consumers just upgrading entire computers sellers of RAM used by older computers have inventory less in demand].

I'm not known for dexterity. But even I can replace a laptop's RAM.

[tosim]

Only a few times way in the past, and I'm going back to Win95, in making that statement.
I can recall one BSOD with Win 1o when it was fairly new, but NEVER one on Linux.
And, I started "playing" with Linux back in1998.

[d-pupp]

I have had a few crashes using puppy linux.
Most were due to using ppm in early Vanilla Dpup. It's all fixed up now.
I also had a very low ram pc 500mb and using a modern web browser was very challenging. Some sites use a lot of java script and that would just grid it to a crawl. I managed by using pail-moon with a add-on to turn java script off. lots of RAM makes all the difference when going on line. Many sites are just resource hogs.

[stevie pup]

I don't remember having any actual crashes with Puppy, but I'm not one of those people that has 20 tabs open at once. Can't help wondering how much RAM is being gobbled up by all the ads and trackers that adorn some sites.

I do remember Bionic32 being far snappier and more responsive than any 64 bit Pup on my underpowered Netbook.

[mikewalsh]

I've had a few crashes over the years that were - for want of a better description! - very decidedly "user-error". But due to issues in Puppy itself? Nah. Not once.

Since I know ALL about low-RAM limitations, lack of storage space, etc, that is why those issues got addressed and "future-proofed" on this new rig as soon as I could afford to do so. I never wanted to be in that situation again.

Touch wood, I never have. Not yet.....

Mike.

[amethyst]

I am doing lots of live streaming now that I have unlimited internet. This really seems to eat up the resources and have this old laptop struggling. I'm a bit worried about Puppy's use of the swap file, I'm not sure it is functioning effectively. I hardly ever see the swap file being used. I'm going to install one of these lite versions of Windows 7 some time to see if I can't achieve better results.

[amethyst]

After doing lots of testing with this machine and comparing performance of Palemoon and Firefox I've decided to use Bionic 64-bit with Palemoon most of the time except for google sites (especially youtube where Firefox works extremely well). In all other scenarios Palemoon seems to be doing better and less demanding on the system especially as far as streaming is concerned.

[greengeek]

I think it would be helpful to define what you mean by a "crash". There are various failures this could cover.

500MB swap is useless. If you do not run a savefile (i think you don't?) then I recommend you use a 5GB swap file on the fastest media you are able to find (even if it is a fast usb drive or even an express card with storage plugged into it). Puppy handles the extra swap quite differently if no savefile is in use.

The basic problem with 64bit systems is the 64bit code does heaps of useless extraneous work in the background - mostly this is involved with transaction mapping and tracking - no benefit for you.

The other issue is that 64bit browsers slice and dice your RAM - in a similar way that DVDs used to slice and dice the information so that it became hard or impossible for non DRM players (hardware or software) to keep up. With 2GB your hardware struggles to keep up with the everchanging RAM stacks that are required for following what the browser does with the data.

Sticking with 32bit is not such a bad idea if 2GB is your limit. Even upgrading to 3 or 4 GB would improve the situation in my opinion (depending on what type of "crash" you are seeing). But adding huge swap (when running with no savefile layer) may be of assistance.

[amethyst]

I think it would be helpful to define what you mean by a "crash". There are various failures this could cover.

500MB swap is useless. If you do not run a savefile (i think you don't?) then I recommend you use a 5GB swap file on the fastest media you are able to find (even if it is a fast usb drive or even an express card with storage plugged into it). Puppy handles the extra swap quite differently if no savefile is in use.

The basic problem with 64bit systems is the 64bit code does heaps of useless extraneous work in the background - mostly this is involved with transaction mapping and tracking - no benefit for you.

The other issue is that 64bit browsers slice and dice your RAM - in a similar way that DVDs used to slice and dice the information so that it became hard or impossible for non DRM players (hardware or software) to keep up. With 2GB your hardware struggles to keep up with the everchanging RAM stacks that are required for following what the browser does with the data.

Sticking with 32bit is not such a bad idea if 2GB is your limit. Even upgrading to 3 or 4 GB would improve the situation in my opinion (depending on what type of "crash" you are seeing). But adding huge swap (when running with no savefile layer) may be of assistance.

Why? My swap file is hardly EVER used (and when it is used it's just a couple of mega bytes). I have long been sceptical of the way Puppy uses the swap file, I think it's ineffective or not working correctly. Windows does a much better job with swap imho. With crash I mean a total freeze where you can do nothing but switch off the machine.

[bigpup]

I am doing lots of live streaming now that I have unlimited internet. This really seems to eat up the resources and have this old laptop struggling. I'm a bit worried about Puppy's use of the swap file, I'm not sure it is functioning effectively. I hardly ever see the swap file being used. I'm going to install one of these lite versions of Windows 7 some time to see if I can't achieve better results.

Live streaming of what?

Getting it from where?

When swap is used can be adjusted.
Read this:
viewtopic.php?t=705

The swap file you have.
Located on what type drive?

I assume, when booting, you see a message that swap is loaded?

[amethyst]

I am doing lots of live streaming now that I have unlimited internet. This really seems to eat up the resources and have this old laptop struggling. I'm a bit worried about Puppy's use of the swap file, I'm not sure it is functioning effectively. I hardly ever see the swap file being used. I'm going to install one of these lite versions of Windows 7 some time to see if I can't achieve better results.

Live streaming of what?

Getting it from where?

When swap is used can be adjusted.
Read this:
viewtopic.php?t=705

The swap file you have.
Located on what type drive?

I assume, when booting, you see a message that swap is loaded?I have

Movies, tv series, whatever. On a ext3 partition on harddisk. Swapiness settings does nothing, useless. Swap is on, I have a script to turn it on at startup and it shows when running the free command.

[bigpup]

Enter in a terminal

Code: Select all

free

post what it gives for info?

I have a script to turn it on at startup

Why?
Normal boot process should detect a swap and load it.

[amethyst]

Free

[amethyst]

Normal boot process should detect a swap and load it.

Not for me, I don't have a save file.
viewtopic.php?p=92343#p92343??? Anyways, you don't seem to have answers for me, waste of time...

[fredx181]

@amethyst from your screenshot: using only 463 M of total 2042 M . I think it's normal then that NO swap is being used (unnecessary).
When you do a lot more intensive stuff on your computer, swap should be used, not?
edit: btw, you do have swap loaded, but 500 M is very little, I'd say make it at least 2G .

[amethyst]

@amethyst from your screenshot: using only 463 M of total 2042 M . I think it's normal then that NO swap is being used (unnecessary).
When you do a lot more intensive stuff on your computer, swap should be used, not?
edit: btw, you do have swap loaded, but 500 M is very little, I'd say make it at least 2G .

This has been answered already. Again - After very heavy use the swap file is only used slightly, a few MB. It does not work properly, it's rubbish.

[fredx181]

@amethyst from your screenshot: using only 463 M of total 2042 M . I think it's normal then that NO swap is being used (unnecessary).
When you do a lot more intensive stuff on your computer, swap should be used, not?
edit: btw, you do have swap loaded, but 500 M is very little, I'd say make it at least 2G .

This has been answered already. Again - After very heavy use the swap file is only used slightly, a few MB. It does not work properly, it's rubbish.

It depends on how swappiness is configured, swap (if enough) should prevent crashing when all RAM has been used.
I remember in the old days, swap usage began too early (e.g. when only 20% of RAM was used), which was annoying because the system did run very slow because of that.

[williwaw]

With crash I mean a total freeze where you can do nothing but switch off the machine.

does any other program freeze up the system, or is it always browser related?

I find some sites worse than others for freezing your browser. I use an ad blocker and suspect that some sites dont take NO for an anwser well. I just dont use those sites

[amethyst]

With crash I mean a total freeze where you can do nothing but switch off the machine.

does any other program freeze up the system, or is it always browser related?

I find some sites worse than others for freezing your browser. I use an ad blocker and suspect that some sites dont take NO for an anwser well. I just dont use those sites

I use an ad-blocker too. Look, it must be browsing related (I use Firefox and Palemoon) because it's really only then when I push the machine the hardest (video streaming, etc.) and it does seem RAM related. JWM crashes and then everything grinds to a total freeze. I still have Windows XP also on this machine. I'm going to see if I have the same problems when using the latter.

[bigpup]

Swapiness settings does nothing, useless.

If you have no save to store the changed setting in.
Changing it will not do anything for you.

[amethyst]

Swapiness settings does nothing, useless.

If you have no save to store the changed setting in.
Changing it will not do anything for you.

It should for the session to see if it works which it doesn't. It's a gimmick,useless. In future (when I have time) I'm going to experiment with Puppy full installs...