On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 11:47 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > Which is an apples to oranges comparison. 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 is > actually based on 2.6.12rc6. I'll be interested in seeing results > rerun against this kernel. Back with some apples: http://lufs.sourceforge.net/unixbench.html Now I have: 1. Linux 2.6.12-rc6 (nodebug+p4+nose+nohm+lean): 355.7 2. Linux 2.6.11.12 (nodebug+p4+nose+nohm+lean): 345.8 3. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug+p4+nose+nohm+lean): 269.3 4. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug+p4+nose+ nohm): 253.1 5. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug+p4): 239.4 6. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug): 236.7 7: Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (orig): 213.2 8: SunOS 5.11 (orig): 122.3 (1, 2 & 3 here share the same configuration) So 2.6.12-rc6 is slightly better overall than 2.6.11.12 and still a lot faster than FC4 (especially in the syscall overhead & pipe throughput area). Am I correct in assuming the FC kernel doesn't use the vsyscall/sysenter mechanism thus taking a serious performance hit on P4s? Regards, Florin -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
