Ever since 11.3 Open Office was performing “badly” to say the least. It loaded slow, with a few documents open “save-as” and selecting a different folder took up to a minute…and so on…
Anyway I had the suspicion that there maybe not enough memory allocated. Nothing within the OO settings worked.
Then I looked into yast=>/etc/sysconfig=>System=>Limits…
found “HARDLOCKLIMIT” set to “@256”
changed to “@512”…OK finished.
Ran a test with 10 documents open
a) startup was much faster
b) saveas instantly
c) pdf instantly
d) selecting new folder instantly
Preliminary conclusion : Java(sun) and OO needs more memory
Sofar no downside, early days.
I increased the value to"@1024
Upside everything else loads much faster. Did just another test with “Gimp” open, opened 12 documents in OO …the speed increase is phenominal.
Maybe the default limitation also explained a number of “screen freezes” which I attributed to running KDE 4.5.1 RC. I was always wondering that with 8GB Ram the system should run faster.
Something is odd here. The default value for HARDLOCKLIMIT in /etc/sysconfig/ulimit is 5% of the total memory. This would translate to @197000 as an absolute value for my system, starting with the total available memory as reported by top for my system (4GB RAM).
Adjusting the HARDLOCKLIMIT did not improve the situation in my 1G memory system, but clearing the clipboard (Klipper) works untill the clipboard fills up again.
Great! Thanks. I was looking for something like this.
In my case, startup was fine, quite fast. But I experienced the terrible slowness in saveas dialogs you say. I’ve done what you did (in my case HARDLOCKLIMIT was set to @256 too). I have to test it more, but for now I’m not experiencing that boring slowness and also startup seems quite faster.
Thanks again for posting this how to.
Interesting if the HARDLOCKLIMIT is set to a static number, and possibly very low.
Another thing you might want to experiment with is modifying the application’s runtime priority which could improve performance competing against other running applications…
On 2010-10-23 17:06, stakanov wrote:
>
> He he, no it is of course a typo. He wanted to write GB. This is the
> second time I see this today…
I think there is a thread somewhere because OO doesn’t work with 4 MB, and I’m bewildered. I don’t
know if it serious, or a typo. Must be serious, the last post says he added a board with 512 KB
(half a megabyte, I did not mistype). Apparently OO fails silently. So I would… anybody trying to
run such a huge program with a ridiculous amount of memory should not deserve an answer from the
program >:-P
> ¿Carlos, no es que eres un poco “malo” ?
Malo maloso >:-)
Depends on the time of the day. Right now I’m… quite “angry” with a script that fails stupidly, so
my fingers take it on anybody saying something below level >:-P
I will make a second cup of tea. Or a tortilla de patatas. Too lazy today. Mmmm…
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)