Ensuring That 2.6 Will Perform Better Than 2.4

Jeremy Andrews writes "Con Kolivas, a practicing doctor in Australia, has written a benchmarking tool called ConTest which has proven to be tremendously useful to kernel developers, having been designed to compare the performance of different versions of the Linux kernel. In this interview on KernelTrap he explains the project, noting that "a good 2.5 kernel (and that's not all of them) feels faster than 2.4 in most ways and this bodes well for 2.6." Also discussed is his high performance -ck patchsets, adding performance to the 2.4 stable kernel with the O(1) scheduler, kernel preemption, low latency, compressed caching and more..."

Comments

Good stuff

[truth_revealed]

I'm very grateful that this guy took the time out of his busy schedule to quantify what every Linux user has suspected for a long time - CPU performance degradation during heavy IO. I have always felt that Linus put too much emphasis on pure CPU-bound tasks and that's why he resisted raising HZ above the ridicously low value of 100 for so long - to the detriment of desktop applications. Hopefully this a start of a trend to create a more universal general purpose kernel for interactive desktops, web servers and number crunchers.

Re:Beta testing 2.5!

[gmhowell]

The question is, why bother? I have yet to see a compelling need to switch to 2.5/6. Hell, without improved USB and journalling filesystems, what was the point in 2.4? I read the kt digest, but I'm really not seeing any new wonderful things. Perhaps there are others in a similar situation?