Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 2.6.32 Kernel Benchmarks

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

  • #16
    Maybe 2.6.31+BFS and 2.6.32+BFS should be added to compare.
    Last edited by Kano; 11-29-2009, 07:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      Yes, but I/O scheduler will be probably set for throughput for final 2.6.32. Afaik it's set for low latency in -rc and some benchmarks suffer from this. It should be optimized and set default for 2.6.33.
      I/O scheduler is set for low latency in the final 2.6.32 and this can have impact on some benchmarks. From kernel newbies:

      In this release, the CFQ IO scheduler (the one used by default) gets a new feature that greatly helps to reduce the impact that a writer can have on the system interactiveness. The end result is that the desktop experience should be less impacted by background IO activity, but it can cause noticeable performance issues, so people who only cares about throughput (ie, servers) can try to turn it off echoing 0 to /sys/class/block/<device name>/queue/iosched/low_latency. It's worth mentioning that the 'low_latency' setting defaults to on.
      http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChange...231eaf58a63ed8
      Last edited by kraftman; 12-03-2009, 10:56 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Starting by looking at the CPU usage during the playback of a 1080p H.264 video file, the Linux 2.6.32 kernel had the lowest overall CPU usage when using X-Video with MPlayer. However, the CPU usage was only less by 2%.
        Looks like there is an error! The graph says
        2.6.30 = 32.3
        2.6.31 = 37.2
        2.6.32 = 39.1

        Comment


        • #19
          I installed 2.632 just now and run some tests to compare 2.6.31-r6 vs 2.6.32.
          I repeated each one 4 times and these are the average scores:

          lame
          0m59.607s ---> 2.6.31-r6
          0m59.639s ---> 2.6.32


          oggenc
          0m24.844s ---> 2.6.31-r6
          0m24.480s ---> 2.6.32


          x264
          1m50.563s with 30.80 fps ---> 2.6.31-r6
          1m51.355s with 30.58 fps ---> 2.6.32


          In other worlds bullshits. Where's the speed improvement in x264?
          Should I enable something specific in kernel?

          Comment


          • #20
            Well BFS increases compile speed by about 5% with the same number of threads. 7zip should be also a good benchmark for this, but single core benchmarks are useless to show multicore speed.

            Comment


            • #21
              So only SMP systems should see encoding benefits with 2.6.32?

              Comment

              Working...
              X