Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:00:19 +0200 | From | Matthias Andree <> | Subject | Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 |
| |
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 16:26, Matthias Andree wrote: > > I personally have the feeling that 2.2.x performed better than 2.4.x > > does, but I cannot go figure because I'm using ReiserFS 3.6 file > > On low end boxes the benchmarks I did show later 2.4-rmap beats 2.2. 2.0 > worked suprisingly well (better than pre-rmap 2.4) and as Stephen > claimed the best code was about 2.1.100, 2.2 then dropped badly from > that point.
Granted, but I don't expect any roll-back to happen. If Stephen can dig up the best version VM-wise, then if somebody could benchmark 2.6pre against 2.1.BEST, that might be a good competition to 2.6pre -- modulo different application profile, of course.
My major concern is usability: VM can be so bad it freezes hell or so good it brings instant world peace: It won't buy me anything if I cannot get to my data because LVM1 is unusable and neither EVMS nor LVM2 is in. I'd like to test-drive 2.5, but booting my kernel and mounting a small root partition from ext3 (non-LVM) and going without /usr and /opt (because these are in LVM) is not terribly helpful to give it a try.
It's some big things that must be fixed before the tuning (towards stability, fixes, performance) can take place. You really can't do the tasting before you've put the meat in. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |