3 ms·
the choice of some of these benchmarks is weird. they have a bunch of cpu-bound benchmarks. why exactly would you expect these to change as the kernel changed?
by dododo 16y ago
the choice of some of these benchmarks is weird. they have a bunch of cpu-bound benchmarks. why exactly would you expect these to change as the kernel changed? (i would expect changing compiler to have a bigger influence.)
the ones that do change (and improve mostly) are ones where the kernel actually plays a role--file system, network, etc.
the iozone benchmark is a bit surprising, it shows no improvement. but they are hitting 200MB/s, so i wonder if this is simply because linux is hitting the max speed of the disk.
all in all, not very useful.
- bconway 16y agothe choice of some of these benchmarks is weird. they have a bunch of cpu-bound benchmarks. why exactly would you expect these to change as the kernel changed? Scheduling is a non-trivial task, and the kernel scheduler underwent significant work during 2.4 and early 2.6. I think the reason those graphs are so boring is because the tests involve single process/single thread benchmarking.
- wmf 16y agoIn general Moronix doesn't know what they're doing, but such benchmarks can be useful as regression tests; if the kernel isn't giving you full hardware performance then you have a problem.