Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:37:44 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: 2.1.123 (Possibly slower) |
| |
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:08:40 -0400 (EDT), "Richard B. Johnson" > ><root@chaos.analogic.com> said: > > > >> It looks as though version 2.1.123 is somewhat slower than usual. > >> Build using a linux-2.1.108 kernel > > > >There were a number of VM changes in 2.1.110 and .111. When did you > >start to observe the performance change, and how much memory do you > >have? The new VM parameters work significantly better for most people, > >and (more importantly) they have much better worst-case behaviour.
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached: Mem: 130719744 14438400 116281344 7385088 3149824 4653056 Swap: 131600384 0 131600384 MemTotal: 127656 kB MemFree: 113556 kB MemShared: 7212 kB Buffers: 3076 kB Cached: 4544 kB SwapTotal: 128516 kB SwapFree: 128516 kB
> > I have not seen the original email from Richard, but Richard did you seen > my email with the VM patch that I am using all the time and that I have > suggested to use with 2.1.123 to people that would see performance drop? >
I have not seen the patch although I have read email on this subject. If it patches cleanly on 2.1.123, I'll be glad to try it and report.
I made a program to compile the kernel many times in a loop to get some numbers.
Cheers, Dick Johnson ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** Penguin : Linux version 2.1.123 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips). Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |