Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Increasing Size Of The Linux Kernel

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

  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    ZFS is the most advance file system on this planet this is proved multiple times.
    ....
    I will answer here:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...calability-etc

    Leave a comment:


  • mrugiero
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    i vote for an AGPLv3 Linux kernel ;-)

    and yes 100mb or 2gb doesn't matter.

    but maybe its much easier to maintain if its much smaller?

    i think there are more arguments for an slim-down.
    That's relative. If there is someone who takes care of a driver/group of drivers, then they'll be maintained independently of the core maintaining, so it doesn't make it harder. If the maintainer of that group of drivers just dropped them, then if some change breaks compatibility, they will be dropped. But that's again the case when they get in the way of development.
    Anyway, if there is noone willing to make a driver compatible with the changes on the OS, then the user of that driver will see no benefit on updating, so it wouldn't change nothing to him if the driver gets dropped in a future release. In the best case, the bugfixes will be backported to the last supported version, and in the worst, the user can still use the one which worked for him.
    The only real problem for the user in that case should be the imposibility or increased difficulty to use a modern distro. But in most cases, modern distros for non tech users are getting fat enough to avoid them with ancient hardware.
    Last edited by mrugiero; 11-14-2011, 02:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex-Cyber
    replied
    While many did take the words "bloated" and "huge" out of context, it wasn't an unfair move in this case. It really was a summary of what Linus was saying, and reading the context only reinforces that impression. He says that "our icache footprint is scary" (making the performance connection for anyone who knows anything about modern processors) and generally characterizes bloat as a necessary evil whose presence is the tradeoff for having a featureful kernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Ok, the discussion continues here:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...508#post238508

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    But anyway, is it not true what Linus Torvalds say? Or is he lying?
    It already has been said on this topic, you can't just take things out of context and assume that they support your views. Linux getting larger doesn't necessarily mean it's getting "bloated" and vice versa. The size itself doesn't affect the performance a one bit. The fact that some bits aren't as optimized as they could be in Linux is again out side of this topic's domain.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    I commented on Linus Torvalds saying that Linux is getting bloated, and this article shows that too. Then it escalated. But anyway, is it not true what Linus Torvalds say? Or is he lying?

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Linux are using faster filesystem, faster hardware, and still are slower on SAP benchmarks.
    This topic has nothing to do with:
    1. Solaris
    2. Linux Performance
    3. Filesystems
    4. Hardware
    5. SAP benchmarks
    So could you please take your trolling elsewhere? Even if Phoronix doesn't strictly moderate these forums it's still part of the good practises and if you ever want people to take you seriously you should start from there. It only makes it worse that this is not the first topic you have terrorized... If you have so much to say about Solaris, create a blog or at least discuss it in its own topic (for example Linux vs. Solaris wars or whatever).

    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Not yet, because it's rather in your interest now to explain why Linux on smaller machine is faster than slowlaris on bigger one.
    As I explained here, you are wrong
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...492#post238492

    The reason Linux is faster, is because Linux uses Intel Westmere-EX the worlds fastest x86 cpu. It is 3x faster than the old AMD Opteron that Solaris server used. It is not fair to compare a 3x faster cpu to an old AMD Opteron?

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    you don't get the point. i only count benchmarks with the same file-system.
    rip out ZFS and your solaris is lost in the dark.
    i don't call the solaris kernel fast only because ZFS is a good file system,
    no the solaris kernel is 30% slower!

    And don't come with solaris benchmarks with ZFS again.
    its like benchmarking windows with fat32 against linux with ext4.

    your SAP bottle neck is the file system not the kernel!


    So you say that Solaris is faster on the SAP benchmark because it it using ZFS? You also say that if Solaris would use UFS, then Solaris would not be faster? So you mean that ZFS gives 2x - 3x higher CPU performance to Solaris?

    I dont know if you have seen the ZFS benchmarks vs ext4 vs BTRFS? It turns out that ZFS is slow, in real life benchmarks:
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...t4_btrfs&num=5

    the latest EXT4 and Btrfs file-systems are certainly great and are actually faster than ZFS
    They say that the only time ZFS was faster was
    when performing random writes of small file sizes and a low thread count, however, once the number of threads became too high or the size increased, Btrfs immediately popped back to being the faster file-system. It is also noting that as our earlier Btrfs benchmarks have shown, when enabling the transparent zlib compression in Btrfs, its performance jumps up even more.
    So you are wrong, ZFS is SAFE, not fast. ZFS does lot of checksum calculations which burn lot of CPU and performance.

    Linux are using faster filesystem, faster hardware, and still are slower on SAP benchmarks.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    there are a simple answer for this question: ZFS

    solaris is 30% slower but the filesystem ZFS is the best in the world.

    if you benchmark with the same file system solaris will lose all benchmarks.

    in the end ZFS dosn't matter because BTRFS will bring the same for linux.

    BTRFS only need another year to grow.
    Here are SAP benchmarks, when they compare Solaris 6 cpu vs Linux 6 cpu. Linux used slightly faster cpus, and slightly faster RAM sticks. Both are using the same AMD opteron cpus.

    However, Solaris used 256 GB RAM, and Linux used 128 GB RAM, but that is not relevant as you dont need more than 48GB RAM to do the SAP benchmarks, Ive read. The reason HP server used 128 GB RAM instead of 256 GB, is because the HP server wanted faster RAM memory sticks. If HP wanted 256GB RAM, then HP would need slower and bigger memory sticks, as slow as Solaris. But now HP used fastest possible memory sticks, because 128GB RAM is more than what is needed to do the SAP benchmarks.

    On almost the same hardware, Solaris was 23% faster. Here are links, read this post and you will find the links:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...430#post238430



    Then Kraftman posted a link to a new Linux SAP benchmark, where they use a 3x faster cpu, and that Linux result is faster than the old Solaris SAP benchmark. But that is not surprising? If you use a server that has much faster cpus, then you should get higher scores.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X