Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice)

jbradford
2002-10-04T07:31:53Z

> > Yet John Bradford says that in swapless 8MB, 2.5.40 is "springier"
> > than 2.4.x, so weird.
>
> Depends on what tests are I suppose. "springier" doesn't
> really say too much. We do minimise memory usage in a few
> places if mem<16M though iirc which could be helping this case.

Well, I've got the following:

486, SX-25 laptop, with 8 MB Ram, no swap, running 2.5.40 and also 2.4.19.
486, SX-20 laptop, with 4 MB Ram, 20 MB swap, running 2.2.21, and 2.2.13.

Both are capable of running the lastest Apache, with PHP support, and Lynx at a usable speed, (I use the 8 MB Ram machine for debugging small bits of PHP while I'm on the tube going up to London :-) ).

I know "feels springier" isn't very helpful, but what benchmarks do you expect me to run on machines with 120 Meg HDs? :-) Suggest something, and I'll give it a go. It's not really faster, just more responsive, (E.G. doing a updatedb, and using jed at the same time is better in 2.5.x).

By the way, I've got X11 running on the 4 meg one, and it's quite usable. I have even demoed a graphical browser accessing the local Apache, serving PHP content.

If anybody doesn't believe me, come along to Linux Expo UK next week, and see for yourselves :-).

John.