Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen)

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] thoughts about default kernel branch (moving to 2.6.x somewhen)
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:06:11 +0100

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 03:06:27PM -0600, David C. Haley wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 13:03, Eric Sandall wrote:
> > Quoting Wolfgang Scheicher <worf AT sbox.tu-graz.ac.at>:
> > > As far as i can tell there are less and less problems with 2.6.x
> > > kernels.
> > > I myself switched my work system to 2.6.x when 2.6.2 got released, and
> > > with
> > > my
> > > new glibc i burned the bridges behind me.
> > >
> > > So when shall we use 2.6.x as default for the linux spell and the iso?
> > >
> > > We shouldn't do it to early, but propably shouldn't wait too long
> > > either.
> > >
> > > I for myself belive that things work well enough to switch test
> > > grimoire to
> > > 2.6.x kernels soon (within the next weeks). And stable somewhen later
> > > when
> > > it's save. This doesn't mean that users have to upgrade, it's more
> > > about what
> > >
> > > shall be default. However, a user should not run into too much troubles
> > > when
> > >
> > > using the default :-)
> > >
> > > So - Which kernels are you running, and which problems did you run into
> > > because of your kernel?
> > >
> > > Worf
> >
> > All of my machines (except my server) have been using 2.6 for at least a
> > few
> > weeks now (some since 2.6.0-test1 came out), and NPTL since it was
> > enabled in
> > glibc (great work, by the way!). I'd like to see 2.6 as the default along
> > with
> > an ISO (but after 1.0 most likely) as 2.6 fixes quite a few problems and
> > is
> > /really/ fast.
>
> Don't flog me if this is a stupid question. But, since this had started
> up I've read how people say that it 2.6.x is faster. Is there something
> out there that can actually measure how fast a kernel functions...or it
> is just one of those perceptive things?

It's mostly a matter of perception, as it's not really *faster*, but
more responsive. If you ever wondered why your windows in X move jumpily
under a load of 6+, try a 2.6 kernel :)
It definitely seems to be more efficient when your memory usage goes
through the roof, that could be measurable, though i wouldn't know how
to do it.

--
Arwed v. Merkatz
Grimoire Guru for video
Grimoire Guru for xfce
Sourcemage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page