[NEWS] - Linux Kernel 2.6 vs 2.4.x performance comparison

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
Tests were run on three separate hardware platforms: Intel Xeon (x86), Intel Itanium (IA-64), and AMD Opteron (x86_64). The x86 tests were conducted on an IBM eServer x335 1U rack-mount server with dual 3.06GHz P4 Xeon processors and 2GB of RAM. The Itanium tests were run on an IBM eServer x450 3U rack-mount server with dual 1.5GHz Itanium2 processors and 2GB of RAM. And the Opteron tests were run on a Newisys 4300 3U rack-mount server with dual 2.2GHz Opteron 848 processors and 2GB of RAM.

The base OS distribution used was Red Hat Linux Enterprise Server v3.0, but the kernel testing relied on custom kernels compiled on each server. The v2.4 tests utilized the official v2.4.23 kernel, and the v2.6 tests utilized the official v2.6.0 kernel. Only the required modules and options were compiled, and there were no other modifications made to the kernels, other than those necessary for compilation on the various platforms, such as the x86_64 patches for AMD64 from x86-64.org.
Tested applications were MySQL, Samba, Static and Dynamic web pages. The new kernel shows impressive gains over the old one in several instances. I would seriously consider a switch if I were using a 2.4-based linux server.

News source
 

The JoJo

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
1,490
Location
Finland, Turku
Website
www.thejojo.com
Me too Blakey, although I've already installed 2.6.1 into my RH9 system at home. The other RH 9, the fileserver, is still using RH9 stock kernel (up2dated, but nonetheless RH stuff).

Seems to work quite well, although I did have trouble getting the darn thing to work, as Grub didn't fancy my root=/dev/sda3 directive and the kernel could complete loading. Only a "kernel ........ root=0803 " helped. But after that it's been smooth sailing. Don't know why that thing didn't work, and I haven't searched for an explanation after I got it to work.
 
Top