Re: 2.4.9-ac16 good perfomer?

[bill davidsen]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Rik van Riel <[e-mail]> wrote:
| On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Thomas Hood wrote:
| 
| > Either 2.4.9-ac16 has much improved VM performance over
| > previous 2.4 kernels (under moderate load, at least), or someone
| > sneaked in to my apartment last night and upgraded my machine
| > while I was asleep.  I'm leaning toward the latter explanation.
| 
| Now that the -ac VM was stable for a few weeks, I thought
| it might be time to sneak in some big performance changes,
| finally.
| 
| They seem to work ;)

  I have been playing with 2.4.9-ac16 and I note that on a small machine
(without the highmem issues) it really seems much slower initially.
After startx I pop up netscape for a test, and it takes almost 50%
longer than 2.4.8-pre3 I've been running since it was new. After that it
seems okay but not wildly better, my aim was to be able to use netscape
and cdrecord and {anything_else} at the same time.

  I'm measuring some figures now, and I have to dig out the location of
the preempt stuff and see if it's in already, or will slide in without
breaking. My bookmarks are on backup while I use the 2nd drive for
something else today :-(

-- 
bill davidsen <[e-mail]>
 "If I were a diplomat, in the best case I'd go hungry.  In the worst
  case, people would die."
		-- Robert Lipe