Bug 63923

Summary:	Processor Load May Be High Immediately After Install
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Geoffrey Burling <llywrch>
Component:	distribution	Assignee:	Bill Nottingham <notting>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	7.2	CC:	rvokal, shugal
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2005-03-01 20:44:50 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Geoffrey Burling 2002-04-22 02:20:00 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686)

Description of problem:
After the install of RH 7.2 is completed, & I am doing a quick check-out of the
system to make sure all items are installed & properly working, I noticed that
the system response was sluggish. Running ``uptime" showed a processor load
above 2.5!

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Didn't try

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install RH 7.2 on an older computer.
2. Run top.
3. Note that on older processors that the load will peak above 2.5
	

Additional info:

Investigation showed that anacron apparently starts slocate within the
first 30 minutes after power up. The first time slocate builds the
database, the cpu gets a work out -- especially on older, slower machines.

This should be documented in order to minimize the surprise on users with slower
machines -- who may also decide to disable slocate until after user
customization is complete.

Comment 1 Michael Fulbright 2002-04-24 16:04:55 UTC

This is a distibution related issue, reassigning.

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2005-03-01 20:44:50 UTC

Closing bugs on older, no longer supported, releases. At this point, I don't
think this behavior will be changed. Honestly, I'm unsure where a good place to
document this would be; it's not really a release note issue; it's more of a
general documentation issue.