From: Steven Cole <elenstev@mesatop.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:31:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00121008312900.00872@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
I performed the following tests running both 2.4.0-test12-pre7 and
2.2.18-pre26. All kernel builds were done in console mode (no X).
All numbers are seconds required to make bzImage. Times were
obtained using the date command before and after make bzImage in
a script. Each test was performed three times.
1 2 3 ave.
449 443 440 444 make bzImage for 2.4.0t12p7 running 2.2.18p26
460 458 454 457.3 make bzImage for 2.4.0t12p7 running 2.4.0t12p7
310 310 307 309 make bzImage for 2.2.18p26 running 2.2.18p26
318 319 317 318 make bzImage for 2.2.18p26 running 2.4.0t12p7
2.2.18p26 is shorthand for 2.2.18-pre26.
2.4.0t12p7 is shorthand for 2.4.0-test12-pre7.
2.2.18-pre26 was patched with reiserfs-3.5.28.
2.2.18-pre26 was compiled with gcc 2.91.66 (kgcc).
2.4.0-test12-pre7 was patched with reiserfs-3.6.22.
2.4.0-test12-pre7 was compiled with gcc 2.95.3.
The .config files were unchanged during the tests.
A make clean was performed before each test.
The test machine was not connected to a network during the tests.
Test machine: single processor P-III (450 Mhz), 192MB, IDE disk (ST317221A).
Conclusion: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12
using ReiserFS. However, the margin of victory is small enough that a
recount may be necessary.
It would be interesting to see results using ext2fs and results from SMP
machines.
Steven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next reply other threads:[~2000-12-10 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-10 15:31 Steven Cole [this message]
2000-12-10 19:52 ` UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12 Aaron Tiensivu
2000-12-11 23:02 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 4:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12 5:17 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 5:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12 11:01 ` Helge Hafting
2000-12-12 10:27 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-12 14:15 ` Mike Galbraith
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-10 20:36 Steven Cole
2000-12-11 18:16 ` John Fremlin
2000-12-11 18:38 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 18:46 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-11 19:50 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2000-12-11 20:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2000-12-11 20:23 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 22:03 ` Gerhard Mack
2000-12-11 22:06 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-13 9:44 ` Rogier Wolff
2000-12-14 13:08 ` Russell King
2000-12-16 0:40 ` george anzinger
2000-12-12 14:49 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 18:18 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 18:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 20:19 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 22:09 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-11 22:12 ` Gabor Lenart
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=00121008312900.00872@localhost.localdomain \
--to=elenstev@mesatop.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox