Re: bruby for 2.4.29-pre2

[Aivils <ai...@un...>]

On Wednesday 22 December 2004 06:06, James van Zeeland wrote:
> The only machine I've got dual head gaming running well on is a Dual
> 2800+ AthlonMP box.
> 
> A 2.4Ghz P4 gets all choppy with Quake3; unplayable. Tuxracer works well
> with both consoles on this box though.
> 
> These are all 2.6

Should run with command
nice -n 19 game-bin

+19 nice value tell kernel use only 10msec timeslices for
that process. This trick will return back Linux native
games, but is useless for Winex.
By default 2.6.XX will use 100msec timeslice for each
process, which value is not acceptable for gamers.

> re: schedulers -- I would be interested in running a direct kernel
> comparison.
> Numbers and real testing rather than just observation has a lot of
> merit.
> I am very happy with current 2.6 kernel, and observed real improvements
> under RH9 over 2.4 kernels, but don't really know what benchtest numbers
> would say, because I haven't done any.
> 
> I have an RH9 box that should still take 2.4 kernels fine, to keep the
> hardware identical...
> 
> Perhaps someone can point me at a resource for this kind of
> benchtesting/comparison?
> 

benchtesting does not exist (or exist?).
Trouble is "how even CPU is distributed between tasks
in short time (20-30msec)". Unfortunately i have not ideas
test subject without interference from tester. 20msec means
50 Hz - this is very subjective value. Someone can
feel game screen update from 50 Hz someone from 10 Hz
and lower rate.

Another troble - single game runs smooth, so developers
reject my requests for help.

> J
> > > Thank You. I'm still under Your 2.4.27.
> > > Mine dislikes 2.6.XX because of poor task scheduler.
> > > 
> > 
> > Absolutely right. Forget gaming: I don't even run 2
> > users right. Perhaps a stronger CPU? I got only
> > 850MHz.

My Celeron 366 is capable run two tuxracers even,
as video 2 x  TNT2M64.
Athlon 1600+ rocks 3 x Quake3.
That is true under 2.4.XX and is wrong under 2.6.XX

Aivils