<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/7/6 Malcolm Wallace <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Malcolm.Wallace@cs.york.ac.uk">Malcolm.Wallace@cs.york.ac.uk</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
The machine is an old compaq with 2.4Ghz P4 and 40Gb drive with lots of space, since I only just installed it, and 256Mb RAM.<br>
<br></div>
... the whole machine was so locked up I could barely type ...<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is your answer I think - the physical memory is too small, and the machine was thrashing the swapspace. When that happens, it easily adds several orders of magnitude to the time taken to get anything done.<br>
<br>
</blockquote><div>As I wrote those words I thought it might be said, but let me put it another way. No other install on this machine has taken anywhere close (i.e. they are all in minutes or 10's of minutes). It's the ONLY one that has had this effect.<br>
<br>It's not the physical memory - or if it is, then it's the program's fault for using way too much. Would be nice to have more, of course, but 256 should enough for what I'm doing.<br><br>Iain<br> <br></div>
</div><br>