Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

From: Stan Bubrouski (
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 15:02:26 EST

Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:18, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
>>I know this has been brought up before, but
>>these don't seem to mean much unless you
>>include 2.4.20 in the comaprison.
> Comparing this to 2.4 achieves nothing because so much changed.

I disagree, 2.4.20 is the current stable kernel, it would
be nice to see how it compares to the current development,
what's faster, what's not... from Con's previous results
we can see that some things are indeed not as fast in 2.5.x
as in 2.4.x. It's just nice to be able to see the whole
picture. I often follow these threads for just this purpose.


> The point of these benchmarks are not marketing, but to find
> improvements or regressions from one version to the next and find out
> what caused them.
> Comparing the kernel to 2.4 has some uses (i.e. finding micro-ops) but
> Con's mission is much different (and imo more useful).
> Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST