On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:51:43 -0500 Kurt Bechstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snips ] > Now having said that I'll throw out my $.02 here. The first thing > I've noticed is that there is quite a difference between the 2.4 > kernels depending on what you are using. < Keep in mind the > major improvements in 2.6 were not to make your mozilla launch faster. > > > However, using vanilla-sources-2.4.24 versus stock 2.6.2 I see huge > improvements in performance and responsiveness on my system. For > example I started running some compiles on my system which taxed the > system fairly well. Running vanilla-2.4.24 doing anything was pretty > painful. Starting up the same compiles under 2.6.2 and then trying to > do other things is a whole different story. I couldn't even tell I > was running the compile which is nice. So I guess that is where I see > major improvement under 2.6.x, that being when the system is under > heavy load. > Unfortunately, I've been running 2.5/2.6 too long now to remember 2.4 results all that well, but I can certainly echo your description of the compile process. I'm running an 'emerge -e system' to a clone of my system in a chroot right now. Idle time is consistently near 0%, but I scarcely notice that when reading email or browsing in another window. One of the things to keep in mind is that any system runs better with more memory. This machine is faster (P4 2.4 Gz) than my other (AthlonXP 1800+), but I have just under 256MB memory available, so I don't get quite as good results as on the Athlon (512MB). That machine (also a 2.6 system) positively screams through compiles. I would be curious to know the memory size of the machines whose owners are singing the praises of, or conversely complaining about, 2.6. -- Collins - Denver Area - Gentoo stable kernel 2.6.3-rc2 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
