Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:27:34 -0500 (EST) | From | Thomas Molina <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.0 performance problems |
| |
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Roger Luethi wrote:
> For the systematic testing, I used "qsbench -p 4 -m 96" on a 256 MB > machine. This allowed the kernel to achieve high performance with > unfairness -- that's what 2.4 does: One process dominates all others > and finishes very early, taking away most of the memory pressure. > The spike for qsbench in 2.5.39 remains if only one process is forked > (-p1 -m 384), though. > > I asked for the bk export numbers with 2.5.39 because I'm curious how > close to qsbench the behavior really is.
2.5.39 won't compile for me "out of the box". I thought it might have been the toolset, but I was running RH8 and it has gcc 3.2. Was there a big change between 3.2 and 3.3.2 in Fedora Core 1? The reason I ask is that I also can't get NISTNet to compile on Fedora Core 1 or RHEL WS 3. It looks like incompatible libraries. - 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/
| |