Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #59365 > unrolled thread

10.9.3 now available...

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  10.9.3 now available... billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-15 19:16 +0000
    Re: 10.9.3 now available... Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-05-17 21:14 -0700
      Re: 10.9.3 now available... "Mr. Strat" <mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> - 2014-05-19 06:31 -0700
      Re: 10.9.3 now available... Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-19 10:24 -0400
        Re: 10.9.3 now available... Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-19 15:40 -0700
          Re: 10.9.3 now available... Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-21 17:23 -0400
        Re: 10.9.3 now available... Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-05-19 23:47 -0700
          Re: 10.9.3 now available... Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-21 17:20 -0400
            Re: 10.9.3 now available... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-21 21:36 +0000

#59365 — 10.9.3 now available...

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..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#59464

In article <ll33q0$4su$1@reader2.panix.com>, 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59513

In article <mcmurtrie-5DAD2A.21143117052014@news.sonic.net>, Kevin
McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

> In article <ll33q0$4su$1@reader2.panix.com>, 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.

No problems here on several computers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59514

On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <ll33q0$4su$1@reader2.panix.com>, 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 was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59524

On 2014-05-19 14:24:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it 
> hadn't finished Spotlight indexing?

I have found that most issues of "slow Macintosh" are indeed caused by 
Spotlight indexing.

Personally I have found that on both a 2011 Mac Mini and a 2010 Macbook 
10.9 is faster than 10.8 - AFTER I let Spotlight do its thing!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59592

On 2014.05.19, 18:40 , Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> On 2014-05-19 14:24:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>> I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it
>> hadn't finished Spotlight indexing?
>
> I have found that most issues of "slow Macintosh" are indeed caused by
> Spotlight indexing.
>
> Personally I have found that on both a 2011 Mac Mini and a 2010 Macbook
> 10.9 is faster than 10.8 - AFTER I let Spotlight do its thing!

Stands to reason.  On my prior iMac when it was indexing I'd leave the 
room and do something else (unless I was doing something pretty passive 
like reading the news online or some such).

On the new iMac I haven't noticed when it indexes at all.


-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59530

In article <xKqdnesOWZ6FiefOnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > In article <ll33q0$4su$1@reader2.panix.com>, 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59591

On 2014.05.20, 02:47 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <xKqdnesOWZ6FiefOnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>> In article <ll33q0$4su$1@reader2.panix.com>, 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.

-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59593

On 2014-05-21, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.05.20, 02:47 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>> In article <xKqdnesOWZ6FiefOnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>> In article <ll33q0$4su$1@reader2.panix.com>, 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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web