lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Which kernel is the best for a small linux system?
    Date
    On Monday 13 March 2006 20:27, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > > On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 21:40 -0300, j4K3xBl4sT3r wrote:
    > > > Hello all,
    > > >
    > > > I've been seeing many Linux versions, with many features, some of them
    > > > just for the newest branches (2.4.x and 2.6.x), I would like to know
    > > > for which kind of system each kernel is recommended. On the distros
    > > > that we see inside the Net there is the 2.4.x series, normally I
    > > > update to 2.6.x (in case of my Slackware 10.2, even getting problems
    > > > with some devices). Is that floppy disks uses only 2.0.x and 2.2.x
    > > > Kernels? If applicable, where can I get (detailed) information about
    > > > these issues? I'm new on Kernel managing, started doing my own distros
    > > > at less than one month and would like to know it.
    > >
    > > regardless of the size issue; you should really not start any new
    > > projects based on 2.4 kernels; they are in deep deep maintenance mode
    > > for now, but it's unclear how long they will be (I suppose as long as
    > > people keep sending patches), especially complex security issues should
    > > worry people ;)
    > >
    > > 2.6 is actively maintained and will be for quite some time :)
    >
    > Any comments on this:
    > http://www.denx.de/wiki/Know/Linux24vs26
    >
    > On another denx.de page I found this summary (so you do not have to
    > visit the page):
    > # slow to build: 2.6 takes 30...40% longer to compile
    > # Big memory footprint in flash: the 2.6 compressed kernel image is
    > # 30...40% bigger
    > # Big memory footprint in RAM: the 2.6 kernel needs 30...40% more RAM;
    > # the available RAM size for applications is 700kB smaller
    > # Slow to boot: 2.6 takes 5...15% longer to boot into multi-user mode
    > # Slow to run: context switches up to 96% slower, local communication
    > # latencies up to 80% slower, file system latencies up to 76% slower,
    > # local communication bandwidth less than 50% in some cases.
    >
    > I'm merely asked because I have been pointed to this page several times
    > and I do nto have numbers for 2.4 versus 2.6.
    >
    > Note: denx does support 2.6 now.
    >
    > I do not concur and recommend 2.6 but wanted to know if anyone had more
    > insight to share.
    >
    > Sam
    > -

    Hi there.

    Since I've been dealing with those platforms quite a lot, let me have
    my $0.02.

    Yes 2.6 is larger than 2.4 and with small embedded processors with small
    caches & a small number of TLBs that footprint is felt quite a lot.

    For the 8xx which shows the biggest performance, later kernels offer
    the CONFIG_PIN_TLB option which help quite a bit.

    So for anything new I'd recommend 2.6 anyway, the performance delta
    is not so great as this test appears to show. I'd like this test to be performed
    again against a newer kernel version if possible.

    Pantelis
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-13 23:01    [W:0.026 / U:32.860 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site