Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Benchmarks Compared For Kernels 2.4.25 and 2.6.4 17

Posted by timothy from the cheaper-than-a-chip-upgrade dept.
Josh MacLean writes "I noticed a link to an interesting article over at OSNews comparing performance of Linux kernels 2.4.25 and 2.6.4. While the workstation benchmarks are rather mundane, the server benchmarks (including Apache and MySQL) proved to be quite interesting. The rest of the Linux geeks might appreciate this. The comment thread that's linked on the last page is turning out to be relatively amusing as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Benchmarks Compared For Kernels 2.4.25 and 2.6.4 More

Benchmarks Compared For Kernels 2.4.25 and 2.6.4

Comments Filter:

  • Kernel Preempt (Score:5, Informative)

    by MadChicken ( 36468 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:18PM (#8715559) Homepage Journal
    Interesting that they turned off the preemptible kernel, in light of what's being said on the kernel lists. I'd like to see this same suite of benchmarks with that feature turned on...

  • Very Interesting (Score:3, Informative)

    by TyrelHaveman ( 159881 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:25PM (#8716600) Homepage
    I have wondered for some time how much of an advantage the 2.6 kernel would be. This clearly shows--at least for dual Xeon systems--that the 2.6 kernel does some excelent stuff for Samba, and seems great for MySQL [mysql.org], while only marginally better for the other tests (and sometimes worse). Someone should do similar testing with various processors. I would be interested in seeing how different it is for the Pentium 4 (with hyperthreading) and Athlon XP, especially.

  • Nice comparison, same results here (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @03:00PM (#8717058) Homepage
    I compiled and ran the 2.6.4 on an eSeries xServer 235 with 6 10k speed disks on RAID5, 2x HT Xeons (3.02GHz), 3 GB ram... and it crashed. The symbols didnt make much sense either.

    Ive been using 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 on two other machines with great results, and running oracle on them now. I've been impressed with newer results, I thought the 2.4 ran the system close to wire speed. I've seen most of the performance difference on my SMP machine (2x Pentium3 550MHz) and filesystem (9GB SCSI 80mbps using XFS), but almost no difference on networking, video and the likes.

    I'll still keep using 2.4 for full-production systems, well, partly because UML is not mature (or even available) on 2.6 yet.

  • statistics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @04:41PM (#8718284) Journal
    One second isn't exactly a huge gap, but this was averaged over five runs, so I will have to give the nod to the venerable 2.4 kernel here.


    Well at least he knows how to take a mean. Why is it that benchmarks never include any error? Is it so hard to put errorbars on a chart? Is a simple T test too much to ask?

  • Apache 1.3? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ttfkam ( 37064 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @06:05PM (#8719230) Homepage Journal
    Apache 2.0 has a worker module that uses both threads and processes on Linux. 1.3 just preforks. Since one of the big improvements in 2.6 was threading support and since Apache 2.0 can run in either mode anyway, why test 1.3?

    If you want to test something more "stable," why bother testing the 2.6 kernel? After all, the 2.6 kernel is newer than Apache 2.0.
  • What?

    I run Gentoo and I wasn't aware that there were version numbers... :) Where's he getting that number?

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close