* 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance
@ 2006-01-23 4:24 Frank
2006-01-25 15:45 ` Dan Malek
2006-01-25 20:14 ` Carlos Munoz
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Frank @ 2006-01-23 4:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
I remember reading a while back that the 2.6 kernel is
considerably slower then the 2.4 kernel (Wolfgang Denx). Has
anybody taken any performance measurements on a later kernel
version to see if the above still hods true?
I'm thinking about moving to 2.6 since a lot of open source
projects have stopped suporting the 2.4 kernel.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance
2006-01-23 4:24 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance Frank
@ 2006-01-25 15:45 ` Dan Malek
2006-01-25 15:55 ` Frank
2006-01-25 18:41 ` Otto Solares
2006-01-25 20:14 ` Carlos Munoz
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Malek @ 2006-01-25 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frank; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
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 suporting the 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance
2006-01-25 15:45 ` Dan Malek
@ 2006-01-25 15:55 ` Frank
2006-01-25 18:41 ` Otto Solares
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Frank @ 2006-01-25 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Malek; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
--- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance
2006-01-25 15:45 ` Dan Malek
2006-01-25 15:55 ` Frank
@ 2006-01-25 18:41 ` Otto Solares
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Otto Solares @ 2006-01-25 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Malek; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:45:38AM -0800, Dan Malek wrote:
> 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.
Many things can be stripped out with LinuxTiny patches:
http://www.selenic.com/linux-tiny/
-otto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance
2006-01-23 4:24 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance Frank
2006-01-25 15:45 ` Dan Malek
@ 2006-01-25 20:14 ` Carlos Munoz
2006-01-25 23:46 ` Frank
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Carlos Munoz @ 2006-01-25 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frank; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
Frank wrote:
>I remember reading a while back that the 2.6 kernel is
>considerably slower then the 2.4 kernel (Wolfgang Denx). Has
>anybody taken any performance measurements on a later kernel
>version to see if the above still hods true?
>
>I'm thinking about moving to 2.6 since a lot of open source
>projects have stopped suporting the 2.4 kernel.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
>Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
>https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
>
>
Hi Frank,
While at my previous company we tried to move to the 2.6 kernel (can't
remember the version, however it was a little over a year ago) from the
2.4.20 kernel. The 2.6 kernel could not keep up with our stress tests,
not even close. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard data. We spent
about 2 weeks trying to figure out why the performance degradation.
However, since there was no real need to use the 2.6 kernel other than
for better performance, and due to other pressing projects, management
decided to put on hold the upgrade to 2.6, and as far as I know they are
still on the 2.4 kernel. A lot has changed on 2.6 since then, so maybe
the performance is better now. You can always compare them both and post
your results.
Thanks,
Carlos Munoz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance
2006-01-25 20:14 ` Carlos Munoz
@ 2006-01-25 23:46 ` Frank
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Frank @ 2006-01-25 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos Munoz; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
--- Carlos Munoz <carlos@kenati.com> wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> >I remember reading a while back that the 2.6 kernel is
> >considerably slower then the 2.4 kernel (Wolfgang Denx). Has
> >anybody taken any performance measurements on a later kernel
> >version to see if the above still hods true?
> >
> >I'm thinking about moving to 2.6 since a lot of open source
> >projects have stopped suporting the 2.4 kernel.
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
> around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> >Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> >https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
> >
> >
> Hi Frank,
>
> While at my previous company we tried to move to the 2.6
> kernel (can't
> remember the version, however it was a little over a year ago)
> from the
> 2.4.20 kernel. The 2.6 kernel could not keep up with our
> stress tests,
> not even close. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard data. We
> spent
> about 2 weeks trying to figure out why the performance
> degradation.
> However, since there was no real need to use the 2.6 kernel
> other than
> for better performance, and due to other pressing projects,
> management
> decided to put on hold the upgrade to 2.6, and as far as I
> know they are
> still on the 2.4 kernel. A lot has changed on 2.6 since then,
> so maybe
> the performance is better now. You can always compare them
> both and post
> your results.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Carlos Munoz
Thanks, I let eneryone know what i find out...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-25 23:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-01-23 4:24 2.4.x vs 2.6.x performance Frank
2006-01-25 15:45 ` Dan Malek
2006-01-25 15:55 ` Frank
2006-01-25 18:41 ` Otto Solares
2006-01-25 20:14 ` Carlos Munoz
2006-01-25 23:46 ` Frank
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).