Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Liquorix 3.8 Kernel Has Some Performance Wins Over Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I have been using it recently due to bug in original Debian kernel, which was fixed in 3.8, but Debian is still on 3.2,
    You could also use 3.8 from experimental.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    If you use Kanotix you can even use kernel 3.9 with wheezy

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default If it is supposed to be measuring desktop performance...

    ...then it should use benchmarks that measure latency. For example, try copying a 4 gigabyte file and start firefox at the same time, and measure how long it needs before firefox is fully usable.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=high+io+wait+kernel+bug

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    61

    Default What About Latency?

    What about measuring things that matter for a desktop and gaming machine such as worst frame performance and input-to-response latency, especially worst-case latency?

    There's not much that is more annoying than typing in a text editor or word processor and having everything freeze solid for two seconds because a large disk job started running in the background.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by not.sure View Post
    You could also use 3.8 from experimental.
    Liquorix is rather stable, desktop-optimized and easy to install. So, no, I couldn't.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kraków, Polska
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Venture to say that I think ... my kernels - particularly i7 [for Sandy and Ivy Bridge] and Brazos [for AMD Athlon II from up] line will be faster, and far more responsive - especially under a load of 100% for each thread / core processor - than Steven kernels. Of course, it must be emphasized that Steven kernels are really good - btw I in recent years do not use BFS and BFQ.

    Regards

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ext73 View Post
    Venture to say that I think ... my kernels - particularly i7 [for Sandy and Ivy Bridge] and Brazos [for AMD Athlon II from up] line will be faster, and far more responsive - especially under a load of 100% for each thread / core processor - than Steven kernels. Of course, it must be emphasized that Steven kernels are really good - btw I in recent years do not use BFS and BFQ.

    Regards
    Can you specify what kernels are "yours"?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Looks like linux truly is superior to windows that never had this problem....
    What are you talking about, Windows XP was notorious for that problem. They have seemed to solve it with Vista/7, though.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kraków, Polska
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    Can you specify what kernels are "yours"?
    Hi, "my" in the sense - my configuration and compilatiion + a few modifications sources [made to build was possible] and e.g patch to removal of info: fast tsc failed. So ... for example, running a version of Brazos:

    AMD APU E-350-1

    AMD APU E-350-2

    AMD APU E-350-3

    Ubuntu.pl/e X t 7 3 kernels

    our script - NeteXt'73

    Greetings

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27

    Default Please mesure LATENCY when benchmarking Liquorix!

    Hi,

    All these benchmarks show is that there are no major performance regressions in Liquorix.

    This kernel is LATENCY optimized. It is supposed to have better LATENCY than other kernels. Michael, can you please stop doing only throughput oriented benchmarks for desktop kernels and add some latency benchmarks?

    This is very embarrassing. And it's the 2nd time Phoronix screws up like this and puts benchmarks that have little relevance. Don't get me wrong. I love Phoronix and I read it almost daily, but I'd like to see it get better and to stop doing embarrasing things like this article.

    --Coder

Posting Permissions

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