Chris Evans wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I ran some 2.2 vs. 2.4 benchmarks, particularly in the area of file i/o,
> using bonnie++.
>
> The machine is a SMP 128Mb PII-350 with a udma2 drive capable of some
> 20Mb/sec+. Kernels involved are 2.4.0, and the default RH7.0 kernel
>
Chris Evans wrote:
Hi,
I ran some 2.2 vs. 2.4 benchmarks, particularly in the area of file i/o,
using bonnie++.
The machine is a SMP 128Mb PII-350 with a udma2 drive capable of some
20Mb/sec+. Kernels involved are 2.4.0, and the default RH7.0 kernel
(2.2.16 plus more patches than you
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
> I did one other quick test, with disappointing results for 2.4.0. I did a
> kernel build with 32Mb.
>
> 2.4.0 was taking about 10 mins to do the build. 2.2.x was 1min30 quicker
> :( I was hoping/expecting the 2.4.0 page aging to do better, due to
>
Hi,
I ran some 2.2 vs. 2.4 benchmarks, particularly in the area of file i/o,
using bonnie++.
The machine is a SMP 128Mb PII-350 with a udma2 drive capable of some
20Mb/sec+. Kernels involved are 2.4.0, and the default RH7.0 kernel
(2.2.16 plus more patches than you can shake a stick
Hi,
I ran some 2.2 vs. 2.4 benchmarks, particularly in the area of file i/o,
using bonnie++.
The machine is a SMP 128Mb PII-350 with a udma2 drive capable of some
20Mb/sec+. Kernels involved are 2.4.0, and the default RH7.0 kernel
(2.2.16 plus more patches than you can shake a stick
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
I did one other quick test, with disappointing results for 2.4.0. I did a
kernel build with 32Mb.
2.4.0 was taking about 10 mins to do the build. 2.2.x was 1min30 quicker
:( I was hoping/expecting the 2.4.0 page aging to do better, due to
keeping
6 matches
Mail list logo
