Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Linux 2.6.30 Kernel Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,554

    Default Linux 2.6.30 Kernel Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.30 Kernel Benchmarks

    With the Linux 2.6.30 kernel being prepped for release in early June, we have set out to provide a few benchmarks of this latest Linux kernel to see how it compares to its two earlier predecessors. While this new kernel may offer support for new file-systems (NILFS2, in particular), support for LZMA/BZIP2 kernel image compression, a new CPU architecture (Microblaze) and many other changes, are there any major performance regressions or improvements like we have spotted with our previous Linux kernel benchmarks?

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13891

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    The 4GB write performance is really interesting, but why this 7z compression regression?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    Default

    It would be really interesting if some kernel developers looked at the regressions and bisected them.

    Hell, I might even do it myself if I find the time this weekend.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default

    It would add a lot to the article if you could at least attempt to explain the instances where there are large performance changes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    why this 7z compression regression?
    because the kernel is getting fat

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    So? fat ones are beautiful

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default

    I have been running this kernel for a few days on Ubuntu Intrepid and it 'feels' faster than 2.6.28 from a desktop usage standpoint.

    My main drive is encrypted, so maybe I am just seeing performance improvements similar to GnuPG benchmark, but either way I like it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default

    These test should be done with 64bit too. On gentoo, we found 2.6.30 over 600% faster in most intensive I/O load (like decompression). A 3 years old (introduced in 2.6.16) regression have been fixed.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elv13 View Post
    These test should be done with 64bit too. On gentoo, we found 2.6.30 over 600% faster in most intensive I/O load (like decompression). A 3 years old (introduced in 2.6.16) regression have been fixed.
    I believe that the first page of the article mentioned that the testing was performed using Ubuntu 9.04 x86-64.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elv13 View Post
    These test should be done with 64bit too. On gentoo, we found 2.6.30 over 600% faster in most intensive I/O load (like decompression). A 3 years old (introduced in 2.6.16) regression have been fixed.
    From the article:

    With the Linux 2.6.28, 2.6.29, and 2.6.30-rc7 kernels we obtained the x86_64 vanilla kernels from the Ubuntu mainline kernel PPA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •