On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Guy Van Sanden uttered the following immortal words,
I tested the responsiveness of the GUI by starting the same DIVX rip on
dvdrip under both kernels.
dvdrip is a frontend that uses transcode, so what were your average
FPS per rip like between the 2.4 and the 2.6
TriKster Abacus wrote:
Either way, these 2.6.X zealots are full of crap!
I could probably write a small essay over the difference between speed
and responsiveness, but I think I'll just plonk you.
PS: tar xjf linux-x.y.z.tbz2 made my system basically unusable for
half a minute under 2.4.24.
Guy Van Sanden wrote:
I tested the responsiveness of the GUI by starting the same DIVX rip on
dvdrip under both kernels.
In 2.4, I can still launch Mozilla and k3b, although it takes them a few
seconds longer. (about 17-25 seconds to fully load)
On 2.6, nothing on my desktop is visually
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Arne Vogel uttered the following immortal words,
TriKster Abacus wrote:
Either way, these 2.6.X zealots are full of crap!
I could probably write a small essay over the difference between speed
and responsiveness, but I think I'll just plonk you.
PS: tar xjf
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 00:10, Collins Richey wrote:
Unfortunately, I've been running 2.5/2.6 too long now to remember 2.4
results all that well, but I can certainly echo your description of the
compile process. I'm running an 'emerge -e system' to a clone of my
system in a chroot right now.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:50:17 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be curious to know the memory size of the machines whose
owners are singing the praises of, or conversely complaining about,
2.6.
All my machines cept 1 are running on at least 512mb of ram ddr400 I
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:24:12 +0600 (LKT)
Grendel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... DVD rips and encoding take long on 2.6 than 2.4 around 26 fps on
2.4 and ~ 16 fps on 2.6. It makes a large difference in time that
extra 8fps so when I want to rip a dvd I switch to kernel 2.4.
Yeah, but you have
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Collins Richey uttered the following immortal words,
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:24:12 +0600 (LKT)
Grendel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... DVD rips and encoding take long on 2.6 than 2.4 around 26 fps on
2.4 and ~ 16 fps on 2.6. It makes a large difference in time that
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Ian Truelsen wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting, but does it make a lot of sense to be
benchmarking what is essentially a development kernel? I would think
that when they are in the single digits in releases, they are simply
trying to make sure that everything works. Once
Grendel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Arne Vogel uttered the following immortal words,
TriKster Abacus wrote:
Either way, these 2.6.X zealots are full of crap!
I could probably write a small essay over the difference between speed
and responsiveness, but I think
Collins Richey wrote:
Thanks for the rundown. I just can't remember: are you in the group
reporting better performance, the same, or worse on 2.6?
I am the highly disputed one claiming 2.6.X kernels are not all they are
said to be.
.. probably goin a bit overboard.. but I guess I let my anger
Ric Messier wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Ian Truelsen wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting, but does it make a lot of sense to be
benchmarking what is essentially a development kernel? I would think
that when they are in the single digits in releases, they are simply
trying to make sure that
Grendel wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Collins Richey uttered the following immortal words,
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:24:12 +0600 (LKT)
Grendel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... DVD rips and encoding take long on 2.6 than 2.4 around 26 fps on
2.4 and ~ 16 fps on 2.6. It makes a large difference in time
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:34:34 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ lots of stuff that we don't need to repeat snipped ]
TriKster,
The essential flaw in your benchmarks is this: all of these items are
single activities, whereas the changes in kernel 2.6 are not designed to
improve the
Collins Richey wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:34:34 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ lots of stuff that we don't need to repeat snipped ]
TriKster,
The essential flaw in your benchmarks is this: all of these items are
single activities, whereas the changes in kernel 2.6 are not
Collins Richey wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:34:34 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ lots of stuff that we don't need to repeat snipped ]
TriKster,
The essential flaw in your benchmarks is this: all of these items are
single activities, whereas the changes in kernel 2.6 are not
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:57:09 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Collins Richey wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:34:34 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... the changes in kernel 2.6 are not
designed to improve the operation of single activities, but rather
to
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:57:09 -0600 TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I mean.. that is directly from Mr. RML (love-sources) himself!
RML and lovechild are most definitely not the same person. RML is a
skilled kernel guy, do not confuse him with the kiddies behind that
hideous love-sources
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:23:15 -0500 (EST)
Ric Messier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I beg to differ here. The 2.5 series was for making sure everything
worked. Once they renumbered to 2.6, it became production-ready. I
don't understand how commercial software gets sneering comments about
waiting
On Friday 13 February 2004 03:05, TriKster Abacus wrote:
[ Snipped ]
Have you, who experience the 2.6.x problems, made sure that you haven't
made your kernel with framepointers? That can make a difference under
constant heavy load (This option is on by default in the kernel
debugging menu).
I
I'm testing using kernel 2.6.3 (mm-sources rc2).
On my system, everything is a little slower under 2.6 then it used to be
in 2.4.
measurable performance is only slightly worse (like dvdrip getting 2 fps
less, 20 fps less for glxgears), but desktop responsiveness is noticably
down under high loads.
Guy Van Sanden wrote:
I'm testing using kernel 2.6.3 (mm-sources rc2).
On my system, everything is a little slower under 2.6 then it used to be
in 2.4.
measurable performance is only slightly worse (like dvdrip getting 2 fps
less, 20 fps less for glxgears), but desktop responsiveness is
Guy Van Sanden wrote:
I'm testing using kernel 2.6.3 (mm-sources rc2).
On my system, everything is a little slower under 2.6 then it used to be
in 2.4.
measurable performance is only slightly worse (like dvdrip getting 2 fps
less, 20 fps less for glxgears), but desktop responsiveness is noticably
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 16:07, Guy Van Sanden wrote:
I'm testing using kernel 2.6.3 (mm-sources rc2).
On my system, everything is a little slower under 2.6 then it used to be
in 2.4.
measurable performance is only slightly worse (like dvdrip getting 2 fps
less, 20 fps less for glxgears), but
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:07:36 +0100
Wazow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guy Van Sanden wrote:
I'm testing using kernel 2.6.3 (mm-sources rc2).
On my system, everything is a little slower under 2.6 then it used
to be in 2.4.
measurable performance is only slightly worse (like dvdrip getting
On Thursday 12 February 2004 23:07, Guy Van Sanden wrote:
I'm testing using kernel 2.6.3 (mm-sources rc2).
On my system, everything is a little slower under 2.6 then it used to be
in 2.4.
measurable performance is only slightly worse (like dvdrip getting 2 fps
less, 20 fps less for glxgears),
Guy,
ROFLMAO!
You haven't been following my posts have you?
I have been having the same issues.. and have been testing every kernel
since 2.4.23 up to 2.6.3-rc2 including the mm-sources and love-sources.
This just goes to prove that I am not the only one seeing this bullsh*ty
ooohooohhhh
From what I have read, the major performance gains are for MP machines.
Check the recent IBM benchmarks that report a 5-1 gain in web pages
served for a 24 hour test on an 8-processor machine!
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-web26/index.html?ca=dgr-lnxw02KernCompare
Ya, but
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 13 February 2004 14:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] perfomance 2.6.3 = 2.4 B.S.!
From what I have read, the major performance gains are for MP
machines.
Check the recent IBM benchmarks that report a 5-1 gain in web pages
served
Gentoo Lists wrote:
I don't want to feed this but what it really comes down to is if your
not happy use the 2.4 kernels or make friendly constructive comments on
the Kernel mailing lists where a developer who has given many many hours
to bring you this nice new kernel can answer and maybe resolve
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:19:21 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what I have read, the major performance gains are for MP
machines.
Ya, but the issue here is.. a desktop system, running basic programs..
I.E. X, xchat-2, mozilla, [your favorite email client here],
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, The awesome and feared TriKster Abacus commented thusly,
My advice to everyone is to wait a bit till the kernel becomes at least
2.6.5 (preferably 2.6.10) as we then only assume that a kernel has become
really stable. Till then stick with kernel 2.4.x
Grendel
--
Hi, I'm
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:05:09 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This just goes to prove that I am not the only one seeing this
bullsh*ty ooohooohhhh ... 2.6.X is so great! crap
Excuse me for interrupting, but does it make a lot of sense to be
benchmarking what is essentially a
] perfomance 2.6.3 = 2.4 B.S.!
Gentoo Lists wrote:
I don't want to feed this but what it really comes down to is if your
not happy use the 2.4 kernels or make friendly constructive comments
on
the Kernel mailing lists where a developer who has given many many
hours
to bring you this nice
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:10:50 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentoo Lists wrote:
I don't want to feed this but what it really comes down to is if
your not happy use the 2.4 kernels or make friendly constructive
comments on the Kernel mailing lists
Umm... that is complete
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:18:16 -0800
Ian Truelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:05:09 -0600
TriKster Abacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This just goes to prove that I am not the only one seeing this
bullsh*ty ooohooohhhh ... 2.6.X is so great! crap
Excuse me for
First off take a deap breath here everyone. No need for name calling or anything
of that sort here. We are all here for the same reason and on the same side
so to speak. You are totally entitled to your opinion and I have no problem
with that at all, but calling kernel developers named and
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:51:43 -0500
Kurt Bechstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ snips ]
Now having said that I'll throw out my $.02 here. The first thing
I've noticed is that there is quite a difference between the 2.4
kernels depending on what you are using.
Keep in mind the
major
I would be curious to know the memory size of the machines whose owners
are singing the praises of, or conversely complaining about, 2.6.
All my machines cept 1 are running on at least 512mb of ram ddr400 I
think..? (dont usually watch exactly what I buy.. I just ask for the
best atm).
I have
Nope, I didn't touch it.
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 00:41, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2004 23:07, Guy Van Sanden wrote:
I'm testing using kernel 2.6.3 (mm-sources rc2).
On my system, everything is a little slower under 2.6 then it used to be
in 2.4.
measurable
I tested the responsiveness of the GUI by starting the same DIVX rip on
dvdrip under both kernels.
In 2.4, I can still launch Mozilla and k3b, although it takes them a few
seconds longer. (about 17-25 seconds to fully load)
On 2.6, nothing on my desktop is visually responding to me.
If I click a
41 matches
Mail list logo
