Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel Performance How Will 2.6 Measure Up?
An anonymous reader writes "This story offers some interesting performance comparisons between the latest stable Linux kernels (2.4.x) and the latest development Linux kernels (2.5.x), comparing performance on both a single processor and dual processors. These numbers help validate that the upcoming 2.6 kernel will outperform the current 2.4 kernel, at least in some instances..."
Yes, It's faster for most tasks, especially interactive and high load tasks.
But how is this news? Ever since the thread on Kernel Notes a month or so ago, most of us have known it this.
Of course, the real solution would be to not need to compile software (plug plug :)
What is the weakest specced machine that anyone here is getting productive/useful work with Linux done on? Do people use Linux on 468s at 12mhz? P75s? Just curious.
but will it corrupt my filesystem?
Performance is important, certainly, but I think some people (*cough* overclockers *cough*) assign it a bit too much importance.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
It looks like the new kernel better utilizes multiple CPUs. This is a great thing. Linux needs better support for SMP systems if it is going to play with the big kids in the high-end server market. (I know, Linux is partially there).
more resistant to the /. effect?
I wonder how well it compares to the BSD kernels, in both performance and stability?
The whole point of Linux development is to , explore strange new algorithms, seek out new drivers and new filesytems, to boldly code where on one has coded before :)
As with all experimental endeavours, you do sometimes get better results, sometimes worse, but from those mistakes lessons are learned and better methods are devised.
It's not about "marketing". It never was.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
People don't just use Linux on desktops, they also use it on handhelds, wearables, and embedded systems. So, a 486 running at 12MHz isn't out of the question at all.
When it comes down to it, you only get cost-effective scalability by using distributed systems or clustering. In fact, for really large systems, it's the only possible way at all.
Something like OpenMosix should really be a standard part of the Linux kernel already, as should other support for simplifying clustering, distributed computing, communications, and distributed shared memory. Distributed systems and clustering is the future, not SMP.
Amazing, I've been running FreeBSD since 2.8 and I've never had an unresponsive system even while doing a build world; I guess the 2.4 kernel is alot worse than imagined.
This is, by and large, the fault of the scheduler, largely unchanged in 10 years and described by Linus, even whilst he wrote it, as a 'hack'. However, it worked, and Linus, being the extremely sensible and conservative maintainer that he is, kept it until recently - process schedulers are difficult things to get right, and their performance is crucial to the performance of the kernel as a whole. Not to mention that for the tasks that Linux has been used for historically, primarily low-volume server tasks on low-end hardware, it isn't really a bottleneck.
Still, the scheduler has been gutted and rewritten for 2.6 by Ingo Molnar - the now somewhat-famous O(1) scheduler, which performs much more fairly under load, and dispenses with almost all of the strange pauses and scheduling glitches under load. Current vendor kernels based on 2.4 (Red Hat's and SuSE's at least, I think) have had the O(1) scheduler backported to them as well. In fact, if you're running near enough any current 2.4 kernel other than mainline, you get the O(1) scheduler and your share of scheduling fairness.
The new scheduler is also a fundamental basis for Linux 2.6's new NPTL 1:1 threading, which has so far proved spectacularly (record-breakingly?) fast. Hmm, on second thoughts, perhaps I probably shouldn't mention threads and FreeBSD in the same post. I mean, isn't this the same FreeBSD that's still waiting for a single half-decent pthread implementation? Oh well, better hope 5.0 is out soon...
cheer!
Why does it seem that so many people in the current Linux community *think* that it's about marketing and money, though? *sigh*
Six sick
My question is simple.Being faster does not necessarilly mean that is better.I would expect the new kernel to be more versatile and tuned with less powerful platforms in mind(e.g. Strong arm or other embedded system solutions).Computers are nowadays smth like swiss knifes.In the future there will be specific hardware for specific tasks and linux kernel must be there! The need for a project like the GNU Hurd must alert linux kernel developers.
Make things as simple as possible but no simpler.
people in the current Linux community *think* that it's about marketing
Because a lot of the new-comers have been beat-up with Billy G's ugly-stick for so many years. That's all they know. Marketing ploys and false hype.
monkeyboy anyone?
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
I'm afraid part of it might be because of the Linux community itself, though.
After RedHat and VA made it big, way back when, a certain amount of "make money fast!" thinking crept into the Linux community. It started seeping into our news and other "internal" communications too (I mean /., Newsforge, Linux e-zines and that sort of stuff, not the lkml) -- people started focusing more on how one could use Linux and open-source to make profit rather on technological issues. The line between hacker and marketer seemed to be breaking down. A O(1) scheduler is all fine and dandy, but how can my favourite business use it to make more money?
Perhaps I'm seeing something that isn't there -- I hope I am -- but seriously folks, am I the only one who have noticed such a switch of focus? I read the articles at NewsForge about the last LinuxWorld Expo, Roblimo seemed to agree that the old bunch of long-haired hackers in sandals had largely been replaced with business reps -- and to add insult to injury, Microsoft was present.
My fear is that Linux will end up becoming as sterile and dead as other "rebellious" technological (or otherwise) ventures tend to become when they're subjected to corporate clutches. Greed kills.
Six sick
I'm looking forward to the network failover and I/O failover features. The Device Manager looks pretty, too. But, when are they going to provide an friggin' LVM? Optimizations are great, but I want features, Damnit!
OK, I have had it up to here with all this FreeBSD worship. After putting up with this for a long time from one of my good friends who happens to be a BSD bigot, I made the mistake of wiping out my Mandrake 8.2 and installing freeBSD on my box.
After a few months of that, I am back back in Mandrake 9.0 with relief and no regrets. Why?
1) I found that, for the things that I do, FreeBSD offered no advantages at all. Performance and stability was no better than Mandrake 8.2. In fact, under heavy loads, my experience is that Linux 2.4.x is much better. (I run lots of octave math simulations and lots of fortran number crunching programs, often several at a time. )
2) For people used to working with linux, there are lots of annoyances to working with FreeBSD. I missed the convenience of RPMS. Many of my favorite programs did not compile properly.
3) When pitch came to shove, my friend had no suggestions as to why the FreeBSD install did not perform as well as linux, except to tell me that I must be mistaken in how well the linux install performed! Duh!
Now, maybe under some circumstances, it is probably true that FreeBSD does outperform linux. But I could not care less. For the work I do (mostly on the desktop, running simulations, running mozilla and xine), linux is demonstrably a better system than FreeBSD.
Magnus.
With Linux 2.4, the internet will be faster!!!
j/k
It's been a long time.
But, when are they going to provide an friggin' LVM?
Err... Linux 2.4 has included Sistina's LVM for some time. 2.6 will have a more generalized kernel interface, the Device Mapper, that will allow both version 2 of the Sistina LVM, and the IBM alternative, EVMS, to be built on top. Or at least, that's what Linus seems to have decided on for the moment.
The Device Manager looks pretty, too.
I think that perhaps you are confused. Device manager? And a pretty one, at that? No LVM? Hmm, ok. Maybe you need some spelling help: L-i-n-u-x spells Linux, not Windows 2000. ;)
I mean, if it were *just* about technical cleverness, the story would be over. Okay, Linux is clever. Film at eleven.
But there's also the crusade out there to *prove* to "them" that Linux can hack it in the enterprise, that it stacks up against Solaris and Windows NT. Space in server rooms is at a premium, and it's a victory for open source whenever a rack slot gets filled with a linux or bsd box.
There's also the cherished open source community belief that "sharing" and openness comprise a valid business model. In light of that, marketing and dollars are extremely important. The marketplace is a democracy, and every dollar is a vote.
(gasp)
And that's all I have to say about that.
I wonder why Microsoft advertizes in Slashdot.
/. readers use IE, if I recall the recent topic on the subject. Given that, it's not a stretch to assume that the majority of /. readers use M$ products regularly.
Most
None of these stats seem to cover simulated heavy multiuser/multithread activity. That's what's key as far as I'm concerned. One of the major flaws in Linux today is the scheduling of user processes and file I/O (not sure about networking I/O, but it seems okay from simple observation). There are still severe process/thread starvation problems in the 2.4 kernel which are supposed to have been addressed in 2.5, but I've never seen a really good, real-world performance test to prove it. Until those problems are solved, Linux won't be useful for realtime server work other than web service.
In case you're wondering, no, I'm not a troll. I've done *extensive* testing in this area. So have others, which is why they've been working hard on scheduling.
No, you're not the only one who has noticed the switch in focus. I know a few large engineering companies that could use the (0)1 scheduler and save huge amounts of time (which equals money), but their management has standardized on MS products at most levels. Also I'm glad I have a gray beard and long hair, sometimes. It's good to be able to reminisce and hopefully learn from the past while trying to create the future. Though I prefer combat boots, not sandals.
C|N>K
Q3 engine based games like RTCW already support this.
Thanks, dear AC, for pointing that out. In other words, id has already ushered in the era of multi-cpu gaming, and there's no question at all that dual cpus get you more bang for the buck than a single high-end processor, twice as fast. At least this goes for id games, but imho, where goes John, goes the entire 3D game industry in the long run.
So now the interesting question is: when do quad machines hit the sweet spot on the cost/performance curve? I'll go out on a limb and guess "quite soon", that is, 3 years or so from now, and that is entirely due to the fact that AMD has already integrated most of the glue you need for SMP onto the Hammer. Now it's mainly a matter of waiting for quad mainboards to start hitting the overclocker market. Yes, there is an overclocker market, and there are companies serving it.
Quad Hammer for gaming anyone?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?