Re: 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance

[Frank <frannk_m1@yahoo.com>]

--- Dan MaleMalekn@daneembeddedalley> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 22, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Frank wrote:
> 
> > I remember reading a while back that the 2.6 kernel is
> > considerably slower
> 
> I wouldn't say "considerably" slower, but there are some
> performance differences.  It's most evident on the
> smaller, slower processors, like the 8xx, but we have
> taken steps to alleviate that.  The problem is 2.6 is just
> bigger with more stuff in it.  You want the new features,
> you have to pay for that somewhere.  I think it would
> help if the kernel was a little more configurable for
> embedded systems.  It seems there is just too much
> stuff in a basic kernel that I wish could be stripped out.
> 
> > I'm thinking about moving to 2.6 since a lot of open source
> > projects have stopped suposuporting 2.4 kernel.
> 
> You know, this is a "community effort", not "when are you
> going to fix it for me" :-)  Use 2.6, measure it using your
> application, and submit updates that improve it. Some of
> us have already done quite a bit, so do your part, too.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 	-- Dan

I wasn't implying problems with 2.6 kernel would preclude me
from using it and fixing problems. I just wanted to know what to
expect so I can adjust my schedule accordingly
Thanks for the reply...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com