Well, yes, I thought it is a known fact.
It may be interesting, that 2.6 kernel needs 32 MBs of memory minimum.
While 2.4 kernel runs good on the machines with 16MBs on board.
Why is it - I have a strong feeling, that it is something with
sheduler(). It was complicated to use the resources of modern
computers more efficiently. I didn't do benchmarkings too, but modern
computer (Athlon64 2800+) seems to run faster on 2.6 kernel, then on
2.4.
I'm risking to be severly beaten, but this is the same situation as
with Win98 and WinXP kernels ;) .
2006/3/20, HQX Net <hq...@gm...>:
> FWIW, I have the same feeling with 5.1 std in my P1 233 - 64 ram.
> But I am (was?) uncertain of whether it is true or just my imagination, I
> couldn' t put my finger on it, and I never did any benchmarking.
>
>
> On 3/20/06, Marcel Beekman <ma...@we...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been testing and optimizing services for VL 5.1 std, VL 5.0.1 SO=
HO
> > and VL 5.1.1 SOHO. With newer machines Amd 700 / PIII the 2.6 kernel wo=
rks
> > fine and there is no noticable loss of speed. However with slower machi=
nes
> > the 2.6 kernel is slowing things down. I can't figure out where the
> > problem is. On my testing laptop PII 266Mhz, 64 MB VL 5.1 std (IceWm) i=
s
> > way to slow. With a stripped down 5.0.1 SOHO (IceWm) it runs fine for
> > browsing/e-mail/typing letters/the gimp/programming with Gambas.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Marcel (webmouse)
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting
> > language
> > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live
> > webcast
> > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding
> > territory!
> > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D110944&bid=3D241720&dat=
=3D121642
> > _______________________________________________
> > Vectorlinux-devel mailing list
> > Vec...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vectorlinux-devel
> >
>
>
|
