From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935277Ab1KJPkJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:40:09 -0500 Received: from dsl-67-204-24-19.acanac.net ([67.204.24.19]:38681 "EHLO mail.ellipticsemi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933707Ab1KJPkI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:40:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:40:03 -0500 From: Nick Bowler To: =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Pinot Cc: LKML Subject: Re: Evolution of kernel size Message-ID: <20111110154003.GA14012@elliptictech.com> References: <20111110143333.GA29457@comet.deepsky.org> <20111110145902.GA13619@elliptictech.com> <20111110151548.GA8557@comet.deepsky.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20111110151548.GA8557@comet.deepsky.org> Organization: Elliptic Technologies Inc. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-11-11 00:15 +0900, Jérôme Pinot wrote: > On 11/10/11 09:59, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On 2011-11-10 23:33 +0900, Jérôme Pinot wrote: > > > I took some time to make a graph of the evolution of the size of the > > > linux kernel tar.bz2 since version 1.0 till 3.1 (297 releases). > > > It doesn't count the stable branches (2.6.x.y). > > > > > > Impressive, it's mostly exponential. > > > If dev keeps same pace, we should break the 100MB at > > > linux 3.19. > > > > > > You can get the graph on my blog, I provide the data and the > > > gnuplot batch file for graphing/fitting: > > > http://ngc891.blogdns.net/?p=92 > > > > > > It may interest some people :-) > > > > What scale did you use for the horizontal axis? I see numbers assigned > > to each version in your gnuplot file, but no indication of how you came > > up with them. > > It's just the release count, one step for one release. > > Some release are missing, mostly at the very beginning, I didn't find > tarball for them but it doesn't matter much for the shape of the curve. The problem with this is that the releases were not made at fixed intervals. 2.6.0 -> 3.0 represents more than double the amount of development time as 2.4 -> 2.6, yet they get roughly the same amount of horizontal space on your plot. I think it would be much more interesting to scale by release dates, so that the gap between releases is proportional to the time between them. I suspect you'll see a very different shape. Furthermore, looking at the raw data, you gave 2.4.37 (released in 2008) a lower release number than 2.6.0 (released in 2003), which seems odd. Cheers, -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)