Slashdot Mirror
2.4 vs 2.6 Linux Kernel Shootout
FyRE666 writes "Infoworld are currently running an interesting comparison of the 2.4 series kernel against the new 2.6 release on Xeon, Opteron and Itanium CPUs with some surprising benchmark results for common server-related tasks. Basically the new scheduler helps the 2.6 kernel to cream the old 2.4: Samba tests showing up to 73% speed increases, MySQL showing up to 29% and Apache serving dynamic content up to 47% faster!"
I was wondering about upgrading to 2.6 from 2.4 with XFS on my box, with the improvements to SCSI support and the CPU speed ups it sounds promising :D
Then again BSD is very nice on the same hardware. Wonder how 2.6 linux & (free)BSD compare for those tasks.
These are impressive improvements.
Its actuallly hard to believe that there is that much more improvement to be gained - it will leave the microsoft servers even further behind as I don't think that they are improving their kernel that fast.
One question:
Does this mean that we can see improvements in low end systems for desktop use, or is the benefit only for servers. Because if this helps low end machines, it extends further the number of machines that can move from (say) win 98 to a real OS, whose hardware has long been abandoned by microsoft.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
What I'd like to see is Linux that could run entirely within cache on the higher end chips. Even dated UltraSparcII chips can have up to 8M/cache. That's 64M in an 8-way box, allowing for some truly awe-inspiring performance on mathematical problems if RAM is ignored.
I haven't looked into sparc assembly enough to know if this is possible.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
The chart on the first page says that 2.6 supports read and write for NTFS. Is this really the case? Does anyone trust NTFS writing if it's in the kernel?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
..is the parformance of the Opteron. Looks like Linux 2.6.x and Opteron are a great combo. Okay, I admit, I was a bit skeptical regarding Linux 2.6, but it seems it might actually deliver.
I'm looking forward for Solaris + Opteron servers. Should be another interesting combo, performance wise. For one, Solaris 9 has some fantastic scheduling for multiprocessor machines. Additionally, it has been implemented in 64 bit for many years.
Sigged!
My thoughts were, wow, much faster. I'm now running 2.6 on all my desktop machines and it flies. They "seem" much more responsive with 2.6 than 2.4, especially under load.
The initial boot time to load the kernel seems to have massively dropped although I could be imagining that.
The new build system in 2.6 definately rocks, forgot to compile something important in? No need to wait for * to recompile anymore, just the vital parts are re-done.
Maybe one of them, maybe both...
1) The new kernel is really very good.
2) The old kernel is really very bad.
Really, if such huge increase was possible, there must have been a lot of room for it. If you face a really well written program, you have a hard time to speed it up by 5%. If you can speed it up by 50% without loss in other domains, it must have been seriously flawed.
Yeah, mod me flamebait. But first think if I'm really wrong.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Yesterday I started a new Gentoo install with the 2.6.1 kernel. I used GCC 3.3.2 and glibc 2.3.2 with NPTL support. I have to admit, the naked eye can see a major diferance with the new kernel. With my XP computer and the new gentoo install (exact same computers .. P4 512MB) I ran a simple boot up and lanch a web browser test. And supprise supprise, Gnome is screamming fast. I had already booted and opened up mozilla 1.6 befor xp was even done booting! Also, simple stuff like opening up email, browsing, etc. is all noticable faster than XP. Soo... before I get slammed by the XP folks.. my XP box was also a clean install. (yes, I have no life!) I am happy to say I am one step closer to completely weening myself off of windows XP.
I just compiled 2.6.1 for my 200mhz laptop (Debian unstable) and the speed increase - especially at boot and for Fluxbox - was very, very noticeable, particularly for cpu intensive apps.
I haven't noticed any breakage - not yet - the machine has only been up for 4 days running 2.6.1. But so far it's great
BTW I used the kernel source from debian, not the backport.
A question for anyone out there with a Digital HiNote 7xx series laptop; any idea which sound chip it uses, and how to set up sound? Google hasn't been very informative. (Not a 2.6 problem, I can't figure out which driver to use; most people seem to be using old SB compatibility, but I can't make it work
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Ditto here. I've been running the -test kernels on the faster machine since summer, so I can't remember just how much difference there was. I do know it was noticeable, tho. In particular setiathome used to noticeably slow the machine; now I don't even notice whether it's running or not. *grin* 2.6 definitely WU'ed me there *grin*
:) Kudos to the kernel people, and thanks!
On the laptop I just compiled 2.6.1 for, however, (a 200mhz DEC HiNote) the speed increases are huge. You're not imagining the boot time drop - it's easily twice as fast on the laptop as 2.4.20 was. The GUI is also noticeably more responsive.
The new build system is great, especially on a slow machine
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.