Linux Kernel Benchmarking: 2.4 vs. 2.6-test

frooyo pastes from kerneltrap: "Cliff White recently posted some re-AIM multiuser benchmark results comparing the stable 2.4.23-pre5 kernel against the 2.6.0-test5 and 2.6.0-test5-mm4 development kernels. In his conclusion he makes reference to earlier scheduler tests posted by Mark Wong saying, "Short summary: we mostly rock.""

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

woo

[grub]

If you thought SCO was mad over 2.4, just wait until they make up evidence for the 2.6 kernel!

Thanks SCO.

[EDA Wizard]

Looks like that 1970's UNIX code really increases performance for SMP P-III's.

Now we can appriciate the forsite that our Unix fathers had when developing Xeon SMP code in the late 1970's.

Re:Not to be a n00b...

[NtroP]

Not to be a n00b, but I can't make too much sense of the benchmark the story linked to

You actually READ the article?!? Man! You ARE a N00b!

SCO Kernels

[Schwartzboy]

No, no, no! They don't have to "make up" a shred of evidence, you insensitive clod! Bear with me as I walk you through the intensive fact-finding process that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 2.6 does, in fact, have more proprietary SCO stuff in it than any *nix ever has before! Watch as the scene unfolds...

DARL: So, um, hey. It looks like there's this new "too-pointe-six colonel" out on the market from those Lenn-ucks people. We own all that too, right?

SUIT: Well, sir, it's like this. Do you remember how the 2.4 kernel had all of those lines of code in them that are ours, even though they showed up in textbooks before most of our stuff existed?

DARL: Sure, but how does that help us with this new thing?

SUIT: Think about it. Most operating systems, according to my extensive research during years of never having looked at a computer before, contain the same code that they always did, plus a couple of lines of new comments and an extra variable or two that shows how much you're able to charge users for the new features. Just think about the Windows 95 and 98 thing. Perfect example there.

DARL: But...my mansion only has 93 windows. Where is this heading?

SUIT: *blinks* Errr...yeah. Well, it's all the same code, and even those sneaky Linux commies try to pull a fast one on us and put one of those different codes in there, we can always assert our ownership of these "opened sources" files that I just printed out. I asked this guy, you know, and he said that all of these sources are what's in Linux, and since I printed it on paper and stuff, I figure it must be a textbook. Since we own all the words that show up in textbooks, and this has a lot of words, I think we've found ourselves a new angle here.

DARL: Smithers, cry havoc and let slip the Lenn-ucks colonel lawsuit monkeys once more!

I do so hate having to correct you people. *sigh*