On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 06:48:56AM -0800, Steve Snyder wrote: > On Sunday 07 December 2003 1:29 am, Klaasjan Brand wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 08:04, Steve Snyder wrote: > > > It seems that the current GLibC package for RHL v9 is noticably > > > slower than the lastest GLibC for RHL v7.3. > > > > > > I can't think of any reason for the performance difference other than > > > the version of GlibC libraries used. For both versions of RHL the > > > i686 versions of the respective GLibC RPMs are installed and running > > > on a Pentium4 machine. The same version of the Linux kernel is used > > > in bother environments. > > > > Then you are not running "official" Red Hat Linux... do you get the > > performance difference also using the latest versions of the Red Hat > > kernels for both distributions? > > True. I'm running the same plain-vanilla 2.4.23 kernel in both instances. Don't. You're then testing performance of libraries which are not developed anymore (i.e. LinuxThreads). LinuxThreads are included just to support old and buggy software or to support old kernels. Please use RHL kernels or 2.6.0-testN if you want to do performance testing. > That makes a difference in GLibC performance? >From your mail it is unclear what routine/routines you're measuring. Also, it is unclear if you used the matching LinuxThreads libraries (either /lib/i686/* in both tests or just /lib/*). Jakub -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
