Messages in this thread | | | From | (bill davidsen) | Subject | Re: XFS for 2.4 | Date | 3 Dec 2003 19:01:39 GMT |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@logos.cnet>, Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:
| A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just | simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with | them on the development tree. | | My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better". | Its much faster, much cleaner.
Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year.
As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other people's data.
I think 2.6 has new features, it is more scalable, but other than threads I don't see any huge performance gains. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |