From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 29 May 2001 03:45:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 29 May 2001 03:44:59 -0400 Received: from [207.66.214.139] ([207.66.214.139]:2058 "EHLO neptune.kirkland.local") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 May 2001 03:44:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3B13542A.5DBA3903@chromium.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 00:47:54 -0700 From: Fabio Riccardi X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Leeuw van der, Tim" CC: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac2 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Leeuw van der, Tim" wrote: > But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which > changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make it faster than 2.4.5 plain? Also, I > don't know if 2.4.5-ac1 is as fast as 2.4.5-ac2 for Fabio. If not, then it's > a change in the 2.4.5-ac2 changelog. If it is as fast, it is one of the > changes in the 2.4.5-ac1 changelog. 2.4.5-ac1 crashed on my machine, vanilla 2.4.5 worked but slower than 2.4.2 2.4.5-ac2 is _a lot_ faster than all the 2.4.4 and of vanilla 2.4.5 please notice that I have a 4G machine, dual proc, and I run a very memory/IO/CPU intensive test, so your mileage may vary with different applications. I have no swapping in my case, it is the filesystem cache that works better in my case. In the 2.4.4-ac series the machine would slowdown by a good 5-10% (fluctuating) when the filesystem cache would hit the size of the physical RAM. I have observed the same behaviour on three different brands (HP, Dell and Compaq), I don't think that it depends on a specific chipset. - Fabio