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!"
tried to get this in before you posted it... but dynamic only went up 22% for apache.... static went up 47%
Okay, who's been feeding 2.6 speed?
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
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.
Those benchmarks are nice, but who runs kernel 2.6 on production servers that need every speed they can get? It will be a few more 2.6.x releases until I consider running one of my servers with a 2.6 kernel.
..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.
So if I use the new and improved herbal 2.6 kernel my processing power will be UP TO 150% BIGGER and my UPTIME will be 200% LONGER!! ;-)
And it's only $699 a box!
The native ntfs driver supports writing only if the write operation wouldn't disturb any of the metadata- that is, you can't create or delete any files but you can safely overwrite a file if you don't change its size. This is more useful than it sounds at first- you can use a loopback file on the ntfs partition for anything you want.
Caching is controlled completely by the CPU, transparent of the programmer.
:).
Assuming that the kernel is the only code running, and it is small enough to fit into cache, then it will get there eventually.
However, it would make no sense to keep the entire kernel in cache, since most of that code isn't used most of the time. Also, application software is running at the same time, which needs to be cached as well.
In other words, just trust the CPU. It knows what it's doing
Actually, it wouldn't suprise me if this is correct. If you notice, he was reading the 500MB file while a continuous streaming write was going on in the background. On 2.4.x, a write streamout will kill read performance drastically. Mostly due to the way the I/O scheduler schedules the read. Which, most of the time, is to stash it at the end of the writes.
The two new I/O schedulers in 2.6.x help to resolve this. For more info, check here.
No, you aren't missing something. Applications will still run as they did, except when they are heavily multithreaded. Starting up something CPU-cycle expensive and typing in open office might give you an idea.
:).
But all in all, it's the kernel. End users should be nicely unaware of it. Don't expect any fireworks to go off, most of the time you notice a kernel you will have hoped you didn't
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
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.
2.4 is the old and busted
2.6 is the new hotness
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Theoretically, higher performance can be achieved in a non-cache-coherent design, since the programmer would ostensibly know more about which data is most frequently used on his system and be able to customize his kernel for that. Also, it requires less glue logic on the board. However, the intent may be thwarted if the programmer doesn't have all the documentation (or skills) necessary to make efficient use of a software controlled cache.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web