Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liquorix 3.8 Kernel Has Some Performance Wins Over Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      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"?

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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

          Comment


          • #20
            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

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              What are you talking about, Windows XP was notorious for that problem. They have seemed to solve it with Vista/7, though.
              they don't. i have it every day on my win 7 work laptop.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by a user View Post
                they don't. i have it every day on my win 7 work laptop.
                confirmed, it's slightly improved in Windows 8 but still pretty bad compared to a Linux Desktop with BFS + BFQ & some tweaks (minutes vs. several seconds where you entirely can't use your box)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
                  confirmed, it's slightly improved in Windows 8 but still pretty bad compared to a Linux Desktop with BFS + BFQ & some tweaks (minutes vs. several seconds where you entirely can't use your box)
                  Can you please point me how do you "tweak" this out, if ,say, you compile kernel on your own?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by a user View Post
                    they don't. i have it every day on my win 7 work laptop.
                    Yeah, it's probably just that my win 7 machine has a lot more memory than my old xp machine had. I don't think it's trashing the page file anymore.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X