Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: 10.9.3 now available... Date: 21 May 2014 21:36:10 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <79ydnZqt4KYyheDOnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews.com> X-Trace: individual.net dfm+2R/SSaYspqh96SlfvAl7B02mqKH94DRCXZr62wIMQ4VpqB Cancel-Lock: sha1:AVvXkoXaLy4SvJ4KyfZq3H5uqHw= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:59593 On 2014-05-21, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2014.05.20, 02:47 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >> In article , >> Alan Browne wrote: >> >>> On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >>>> In article , billy@MIX.COM wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1745/en_US/OSXUpd10.9.3.dmg >>>>> >>>>> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1746/en_US/OSXUpdCombo10.9.3.dmg >>>>> >>>>> Billy Y.. >>>> >>>> Ugh. I put 10.9 on a laptop that I don't use much so I could try some >>>> apps that require Mavericks. The 10.9.3 seems to have accomplished the >>>> impossible and made Mavericks even slower. It stalls like it was booted >>>> from an ancient CD ROM drive. No swapping, no CPU load, no errors - >>>> just beachball. >>> >>> >>> I have it running on a 2009 MBA with 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of RAM >>> (256 MB is shared with the graphics processor) and it runs fine with >>> 10.9.3. Usual 'load' is Chrome, Mail, iTunes - other programs used >>> often include Word, Excel and others. Occasionally use Bridge/Photoshop >>> CS5 and it does well enough. >>> >>> CPU load per Menu Meters varies as normal (including a nice clean idle) >>> but it doesn't take much to be near fully loaded. (Some web page >>> content can cause it to go near saturation). >>> >>> That said I'm considering a rollback to 10.8.x to see if it does perform >>> better. >>> >>> I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it >>> hadn't finished Spotlight indexing? >> >> I've debugged this before. 10.7, 10.8, and especially 10.9 make >> excessive calls to an aging filesystem that can't handle the load. >> Finder may deep traverse a directory over and over again for several >> minutes for no apparent reason, resulting in thousands of 'stat64' >> calls. Autosave, file versioning hacks, mds, local Time Machine >> backups, and several new daemons hit the filesystem hard. >> >> Apple's bonehead workaround is for these problems is that the filesystem >> throttles excessive calls. Yes, Apple is throttling their own apps to >> keep their bugs from locking up their old OS. >> >> This is also the reason for people complaining that network volumes are >> slow in Mavericks. >> >> >> Try running 'fs_usage' in 10.6.8. It's fairly quiet. Now try it in >> 10.9. It's massive spew with 'THROTTLED' flashing by periodically. >> Open some Finder windows and watch Finder go nuts hammering the >> filesystem. > > That's all very entertaining but as I say above I don't seem to have the > same issues with a fairly low powered laptop with only 2 GB of RAM. > > It has, in some cases, with some web pages, gone to CPU saturation but > that's pretty easy to solve. > > So it would seem to be less an OS version issue than a particular > installation issue. That's more likely, yep. As I recall, others have said similar things the several times he's brought this issue up over the past few years. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR