Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75

Thread: Five Years Of Linux Kernel Benchmarks: 2.6.12 Through 2.6.37

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,396

    Default Five Years Of Linux Kernel Benchmarks: 2.6.12 Through 2.6.37

    Phoronix: Five Years Of Linux Kernel Benchmarks: 2.6.12 Through 2.6.37

    While we have conducted studies related to the Linux kernel performance in the past such as benchmarking up to twelve kernel releases, going out the door this morning are the results from the largest-ever Linux kernel comparison conducted at Phoronix, and very likely the largest ever of its kind regardless of source. Every major Linux kernel release from Linux 2.6.12, which was released in mid-2005, up through the latest Linux 2.6.37 development code was tested. This represents the past five years of the Linux kernel and shows how the performance has evolved over the past 25 stable kernel releases and the most recent 2.6.37 development kernel.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15409

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Interesting that also, Intel corp, has confirmed that Linux is getting slower and slower. Maybe this is because Linux is getting more and more bloated?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09..._bloated_huge/
    "Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked.

    "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Linux Torvalds."



    Maybe Linux should focus one release on bug fixes instead of introducing new functionality all the time? Just like Apple did. One of the recent big Mac OX S releases was devoted to only bug fixes and slimming down OS X. Which paid off.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Interesting that also, Intel corp, has confirmed that Linux is getting slower and slower. Maybe this is because Linux is getting more and more bloated?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09..._bloated_huge/
    "Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked.

    "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Linux Torvalds."



    Maybe Linux should focus one release on bug fixes instead of introducing new functionality all the time? Just like Apple did. One of the recent big Mac OX S releases was devoted to only bug fixes and slimming down OS X. Which paid off.
    I assume you are referring to Snow Leopard (10.6)... This was less a "bug fix and slim" release as it was a "recompile in 64bit" release.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobbieAB View Post
    I assume you are referring to Snow Leopard (10.6)... This was less a "bug fix and slim" release as it was a "recompile in 64bit" release.
    That is over simplifying 10.6. 10.6 was more about trimming out legacy support (PPC) and features such as openCL.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Maybe Linux should focus one release on bug fixes instead of introducing new functionality all the time?
    Developers are not interested in this, developers gets paid for features.

    If you want stable kernel, only bug fixes etc you can use RHEL or SLES kernel.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    220

    Default

    would there be a significant performance boost if kernel was compiled manually with only the drivers needed for a particular system?
    i had gentoo some time ago and i didnt see a huge performance increase.
    how come? i really had only the drivers i needed in there.
    does the BKL change of 2.6.37 affect single core systems like mine?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakubo View Post
    would there be a significant performance boost if kernel was compiled manually with only the drivers needed for a particular system?
    i had gentoo some time ago and i didnt see a huge performance increase.
    how come? i really had only the drivers i needed in there.
    does the BKL change of 2.6.37 affect single core systems like mine?
    The BKL removal shouldn't affect single-threaded systems at all because the BKL is used only for multi-threaded, multi-core, or multi-processing systems.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Interesting that also, Intel corp, has confirmed that Linux is getting slower and slower. Maybe this is because Linux is getting more and more bloated?
    Uhm did you even have a look at the results? I got the impression that performance actually mostly improved.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhick View Post
    Uhm did you even have a look at the results? I got the impression that performance actually mostly improved.
    Well that depends I guess if you call resuming performance after a regression an "improvement". The only conclusion that I can really see is it depends on what performance you are looking at. Overall it's about the same IMO with a few exceptions.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhick View Post
    Uhm did you even have a look at the results? I got the impression that performance actually mostly improved.
    Yes I looked at every result. I suggest you look again.


    Now the 10 year old BKL is dealt with. That is good. Maybe Linux will soon start to scale better than today?
    http://www.mattheaton.com/?p=222
    "If linux wants to scale efficiently to 16,32,64 cores then the scheduler needs some serious work."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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