From: Derek Glidden <dglidden@illusionary.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Linux 2.2 and 2.4 VM systems analysed
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:50:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BE1A790.25B7E6F5@illusionary.com> (raw)
I've been following the 2.4 VM issues since the early 2.4-pre days. As
a "power user" and someone who uses Linux at work, the kernel's
stability is of great interest to me. Finally, I got sick of trying to
interpret the data from various sources on how well the 2.4 VM systems
perform overall and in comparison with each other and other systems. So
I ran my own tests against 2.4.12-ac6, 2.4.13, and 2.2.19 and wrote up
the results:
"An analysis of three Linux kernel VM systems"
http://www.nks.net/linux-vm.html
The conclusion in a nutshell is that yes, the 2.4 kernel VM systems
still have a few quirks to work out, but overall they are so
significantly better than the 2.2 VM that there really is no
comparison.
However, this "significantly better" conclusion is for certain
high-stress situations where the 2.2 VM apparently fails entirely, while
2.4 chugs along with barely a notice.
For overall end-user experience, 2.2 still "feels" better overall with
better interactive responsiveness under a varying set of loads even
though 2.4 really is faster at doing the actual work.
Comments, responses, suggestions welcome. Flames will be cheerfully
redirected to /dev/null.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map
{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;
$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)
[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join
"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d=
unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d
>>12^$d>>4^$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*
8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}
print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
usage: qrpff 153 2 8 105 225 < /mnt/dvd/VOB_FILENAME \
| extract_mpeg2 | mpeg2dec -
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
http://www.eff.org/ http://www.anti-dmca.org/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5537/2028
next reply other threads:[~2001-11-01 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-01 19:50 Derek Glidden [this message]
2001-11-01 20:18 ` Linux 2.2 and 2.4 VM systems analysed Miquel van Smoorenburg
2001-11-01 20:20 ` Rik van Riel
2001-11-01 23:42 ` Kilobug
2001-11-02 14:14 ` john slee
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=3BE1A790.25B7E6F5@illusionary.com \
--to=dglidden@illusionary.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