On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:58:41AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Lewi wrote: > > but what's the big difference between those beta linux, > > in the perfomance area, I notice that shrike is more slower than taroon ... > Taroon is RH Enterprise Linux and it has a *lot of kernel* > patches not present into RH Linux like 2.6 backports, better VM(rmap), > updated drivers, stable TCP_NFS, ACL, TuX,.... That's quite correct. There are some 2.6 backports in the severn kernel, but not nearly as many. And quite a lot of performance tuning went into taroon kernels. In addition, later taroon kernels had debugging stuff like slab poisoning turned off, whereas severn kernels have slab poisoning still turned on. So the severn kernel should get a bit faster in some cases when we disable slab poisoning (scheduled for test3) but we wouldn't expect it to perform equivalently to the taroon kernel, which is developed under a very different regimen. michaelkjohnson "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book." Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
