Linux 2.2 and 2.4 VM Systems Compared

Derek Glidden writes "I got sick of trying to figure out from other people's reports whether or not the 2.4 kernel VM system was broken or not, so I decided to run my own tests, write them up and post them online. The short conclusion is that the 2.4 VM rocks when compared with 2.2, but there's more to it than just that."

Comments

Re:Did someone think otherwise?

[the_2nd_coming]

I don't think most people really thought the 2.4 VM was a worse performer than 2.2, especially under normal load, and in recent kernels even under high loads.

well, I would like to say I hate the 2.4 VM. my Suse box was chuging along, and not doing anything at all, I go to the store realy quick to grab some stuff for my wife and when I return the machine is grinding like mad. I had no processes running no application up but the box was slow as hell. the light on the HDD would not turn off at all. I had to do a hard boot even after I tried to kill X since the action was taking forever.

I have used linux for 3 years now and I have never had to hard boot it, at least not in a situation where I didn't mess up the box :-)
3 years and one hard boot is pretty good, but it should not happen at all. I truly think that the 2.4 VM sucks and I am realy hoping that the 2.4.14pre7 VM is the goldenchild......please Linus, for 2.5 make sure the VM works before you put out 2.6, even if it takes you 2 years....oh wait :-)

2.2.12

[dizzy_p]

Hi,

at my former college, a server i'm the administrator of - has an uptime of 98 + 269 + 158 days (the power went down 2 times)..

A sparcStation 10 - running rh 6.1 + + ...

It's probably the most stable machine I've
ever runned into.