Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov> writes:
[...]
> In each case, the task and the tools used are the same. The only
> difference was the kernel used. In both cases, 2.2.18 won by 3%.
> Its comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Granted 3%
> isn't very much, but I would have guessed that 2.4.0 would have been
> the winner. It wasn't, at least for this single processor machine.
Two points: (1) gcc 2.95 makes slightly slower code than egcs-1.1
(according to benchmarks on gcc.gnu.org) so compile 2.4 kernel with
egcs for a fairer comparison. (2) The new VM was a performance
regression for throughput.
I think that it is important that the extent of the indisputable
performance decreases be quantified and traced. For me there was a
subjective performance peak around 2.3.48 IIRC, though it might have
been before. Andrea Archangeli has a VM patch that seems to
help in some cases.
It would be interesting to run a series of (automated) tests on a lot
of kernel versions, and to see how far performance is behind FreeBSD
(or even NetBSD).
[...]
--http://www.penguinpowered.com/~vii - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST