On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Collins Richey uttered the following immortal words, > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:24:12 +0600 (LKT) > Grendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... DVD rips and encoding take long on 2.6 than 2.4 around 26 fps on > > 2.4 and ~ 16 fps on 2.6. It makes a large difference in time that > > extra 8fps so when I want to rip a dvd I switch to kernel 2.4. > > > > Yeah, but you have to rip a lot of DVDs to gain back the time you lose > in rebooting.
not really 25fps would mean 2 hours for a 2 hour video rip. 16 fps would mean around 3hours, so I save one hour by booting into 2.4. > No one is claiming that 2.6 is faster across the board, > but IBM has demonstrated that SMP performance is up by a factor of 5, > and lots of users have demonstrated that desktop responsiveness has > improved, so it's no big deal. Actually do we have a good benchmarking suite for linux? A good benchmark would consists of many aspects some I can think of would be, 1. time taken to encode a dvd movie to mpeg4 codec. 2. Time taken for lame to encode a mp3 file. 3. Run a 3d bechmark game and see the fps at startup. gears is not good what you need is something like quake 3 or neverwinter nights or ut 2003. 4. Kernel compile This would be a good benchmark for a desktop user and we would be able to see how well kernel 2.4 and 2.6 fair. > Personally, I stopped running 2.4 6 months ago and haven't looked back. > I was even able to get alsa marginally working on my sound card, and it > didn't in 2.4. What about OSS? Grendel. -- Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
