Jump to content

Comparison of 2.6 and 2.4 kernels


iphitus
 Share

Recommended Posts

We hear that 2.6 kernel is faster on modern hardware, so I decided to compare the 2.4 and 2.6 series kernels on some older hardware, detailed below. The results are easily in favour of 2.6. THe 2.4.18 and 2.6.0 kernels were self compiled. I took out all the components I did not require. Neither of those two use an initrd. I used no optimization. The 2.4.22 kernel was purely for interest. It does show that a self compiled kernel does have a speed advantage. I chose the slightly older 2.4.18 kernel as the most recent 2.4 series kernels include many of the features of 2.6.

 

I timed the bootup times from the moment i hit enter on lilo to when GDM is completed loading. I have apache 1, ssh server and other servers and daemons running such as fetchmail. I disabled dhcp and internet on boot. I did this test twice for each kernel and the results were identical.

 

The login time was the time taken from when I hit enter on GDM to when the last application (usually GNOME-panel) is loaded. The script GDM runs to log me in is below.

 

I ran glxgears purely for interest, my X info and graphics card are below.

 

Firebird is a slow starter on this computer, so i tested it out. I turned on the computer logged in and ran firebird. No other apps than those in the startup script were running.

 

Hope you find this of some interest.

 

Test Conditions

Test machine:

Hardware:

Pentium 2 300mhz

Intel 440LX/EX mobo

160mb ram

6gb HDD

ATI Technologies Inc 3D Rage Pro AGP 1X/2X

 

Login script:

mount /dev/hda5

GSDPID=`pidof gnome-settings-daemon`

if [ "x$GSDPID" == "x" ]; then

gnome-settings-daemon &

fi

gnome-panel &

velocity &

xbindkeys &

xmms &

gkrellm &

fbsetbg ~/images/orange.png

exec /etc/X11/Xsession /usr/local/bin/fluxbox

 

Fluxbox:

Fluxbox 0.9.7, self compiled, optimized -03.

Style used was not a pixmap

 

Firebird:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5)

Gecko/20031225 Firebird/0.7

 

OS: Debian Sid.

X: 832x624x16 using DRI.

 

Results

 

2.6.0 Results:

Startup: 45 seconds

Login: 32 seconds

Firebird: 15 seconds

 

glxgears:

400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 80.000 FPS

486 frames in 5.0 seconds = 97.200 FPS

537 frames in 5.0 seconds = 107.400 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 80.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 6.0 seconds = 83.333 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

 

2.4.22 results: Debian Package (kernel-image-2.4.22-1-686)

Startup: 1 minute 18 seconds

Login: 41 seconds

 

glxgears:

594 frames in 5.0 seconds = 118.800 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS

 

Part of the reason this one took considerably longer to boot is that it uses modules whereas the other two had as much as possible compiled into the kernel.

 

2.4.18 results:

Startup: 50 seconds

Login: 42 seconds

Firebird: 17 seconds

 

521 frames in 5.0 seconds = 104.200 FPS

400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 80.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.000 FPS

400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 80.000 FPS

 

 

What do you think?

 

iphitus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had some criticism, saying that the bootup cant be considered...etc.

 

THe idea was to se real world performance, not some synthetic benchmark. The only thing i changed in the bootup was the kernels. You might complain about modules, but i stress, on 2.6.0 and 2.4.18 -- no modules were used unless you had to have it in a module. I didnt compile anything i didnt require.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had some criticism, saying that the bootup cant be considered...etc.

:huh: :unsure:

 

the point was this. The bootup isn't faster because the kernel is that much faster. It's faster because the way the 2.6 boots is so much more diff than the 2.4. In that regard, bootup can be considered because it is another 2.6 improvment over 2.4's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to know, not that i am surprised though, i've been running 2.6 for a while and noticed very nice speed improvements in Return To Castle Wolfenstein, on a resonably slow (compared to modern standards) Pentium 3 650MHz computer. Most other apps that i use have also gained a speed improvement.

 

The 2.6 kernel and Reiser 4 will make for a nice couple. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice iphitus!

 

I am running 2.6.1-rc1 and really enjoying it. The bootup is snappy (I am down to 30 seconds from startup to GDM, with quite a few modules booting - this is on a AMD AthlonXP 2500+ with 512MB RAM).

 

The only problem I have is with my VIA onboard sound (8233 Southbridge). It works well, but I get an error about some codecs at boot.

 

I just downloaded rc3, hopefully the bug fixes cause some voodoo ;)

Edited by SoulSe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...