Re: 2.6.0 performance problems

[Thomas Molina]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Roger Luethi wrote:

> For the systematic testing, I used "qsbench -p 4 -m 96" on a 256 MB
> machine. This allowed the kernel to achieve high performance with
> unfairness -- that's what 2.4 does: One process dominates all others
> and finishes very early, taking away most of the memory pressure.
> The spike for qsbench in 2.5.39 remains if only one process is forked
> (-p1 -m 384), though.
> 
> I asked for the bk export numbers with 2.5.39 because I'm curious how
> close to qsbench the behavior really is.

2.5.39 won't compile for me "out of the box".  I thought it might have 
been the toolset, but I was running RH8 and it has gcc 3.2.  Was there a 
big change between 3.2 and 3.3.2 in Fedora Core 1?  The reason I ask is 
that I also can't get NISTNet to compile on Fedora Core 1 or RHEL WS 3.  
It looks like incompatible libraries.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/