Kernel Krazy this week - I installed test1 a few days ago, and test2 in the
last couple. Here's what happened...
test1:
* No troubles on boot, everything ran as per.
* Framebuffer consoles (with Matrox cards) are cool. You get a penguin for
each processor in your system - now I have a spurious reason to get a dual
CPU board.
* The VM (virtual memory) in this release isn't all that great. My highly
technical appraisal is that with 2.2.16, BubbleMon shows about a quarter
of my memory used when doing basic X stuff (powershell, console mail
client, Gnome panels, irc - not Nutscrape), whilst with test1, it
constantly creeps up towards full.
* IDE performance isn't noticably faster, in fact overall performance seems
overly sluggish when there's hard drive action going on.
* bttv driver was greyed out during kernel config.
test2:
* Boots faster than any other kernel I've met. Postfix decided not to start
because tar segfaulted in its script. This turned out to be a wider
problem.
* VM seems much better than both test1 and 2.2. Not sure who's code it was
(there's a bit of competition going on on the VM front), but all-round
faster for X things. No more leakage. BubbleMon test: stable at
one-quarter full.
* IDE performace is faster, feels like less CPU involved as other processes
don't go AWOL as much.
* bttv driver back and happy.
Given the time, I might do a couple of "proper" performance tests - at least
something with numbers.
Anyone else been playing with the new ones?
- Jeff
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
w: http://www.slug.org.au/
i: 16341281 (jdub!)
q: "In addition to these ample facilities, there exists a powerful
configuration tool called gcc." - Elliot Hughes, author of lwm
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
