Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Linux 2.6.32 Kernel Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,431

    Default Linux 2.6.32 Kernel Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.32 Kernel Benchmarks

    With the Linux 2.6.32 kernel being released in a few days, we found it time to benchmark this newest kernel release that brings new drivers, kernel mode-setting improvements, virtualization enhancements, and more.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14403

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    206

    Default

    I'm starting to think that those big boys should really start testing and profiling their crap. I wonder how 2.6.24 would compare. Good article.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,002

    Default

    This x264 boost is rather interesting, but this postmark and iozone regressions are due to the ext4 "problem"?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hax0r View Post
    I'm starting to think that those big boys should really start testing and profiling their crap. I wonder how 2.6.24 would compare. Good article.
    I asbolutely quote here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    This x264 boost is rather interesting, but this postmark and iozone regressions are due to the ext4 "problem"?
    No idea what's wrong with ext4, but Con Kolivas needs three cheers for getting them to finally fix their damn scheduler.

  6. #6

    Default

    Read: http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14285 where PTS shows the specific commit that causes the performance drop.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    61

    Question

    I was really psyched about Ext4 when it first came out, but perhaps I should just stick with good old Ext3 for another year...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Meh, just get an ups and mount with nobarrier.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ant P. View Post
    No idea what's wrong with ext4, but Con Kolivas needs three cheers for getting them to finally fix their damn scheduler.
    Well, CK and Dark Shikari. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=185

    @Phoronix team:
    Quote Originally Posted by Article
    ...the Linux 2.6.32 kernel had the lowest overall CPU usage when using X-Video with MPlayer.
    Not lowest. Either 'worst', or 'highest'.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ant P. View Post
    No idea what's wrong with ext4, but Con Kolivas needs three cheers for getting them to finally fix their damn scheduler.
    Apache benchmark is meaningless. Not sure about others, but it's probably because of change in Ext4 like Michael said. Con's scheduler is slower in Apache. Btw. notice performance in not disk related benchmars is as it should be.
    Last edited by kraftman; 11-28-2009 at 05:18 AM.

Posting Permissions

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