FW: RE: [SLE] Linux perfomance issues
Hi, This might be a better link: http://freshmeat.net/projects/powertweak-linux/ Jostein
===== Original Message From Jostein Berntsen
===== Hi,
A couple of more suggestions for tweaking your Linux system is: Powertweak: http://linux.powertweak.com/ And this kernel patch: http://www.tech9.net/rml/linux/ http://kerneltrap.com/article.php?sid=328 Jostein
===== Original Message From Vitaly Shishakov
===== Dear all! Lately, i was pretty much concerned about Linux perfomance on low-end (e.g. i586) machines.
Since i dont have any, i decided to study it on my Celeron 333A running at 500Mhz (100MHz FSB), 512MB RAM, 40GB UDMA66HDD, and so on. I noticed that on my computer Windows 2000 pro starts 2 times faster than Linux (SuSE 7.2 pro) does. (did not measured the times, sorry). Besides, Windows tasks (Explorer, etc) seem to faster (visually) that my KDE (2.2.1), (both systems tuned to be most perfomance-effective, like no UI effects, simplest UI style, etc)
Then i did the foolwing:
i swithced off CPU cache both level 1 and 2 in BIOS setup, and then watched the effect! When i booted Linux, the ONLY operation that took reasonably longer time to complete was linux kernel decompressing at boot. All start-up steps perfomed a bit slower than usually, KDE startup took 3 times longer, but when i tried to perform some basic actions, (like file browsing, KDevelop opening, etc) -- seemed like my computer just became 2 times slower, but visually, it looked OK. GNOME lost more perfomance -- applications generally took much longer time to start, but general perfomance was OK.
But when i tried to boot my Windows 2000 ..... i managed to yawn 20 times (still obswerwing "STARTING WINDOWS..." black screen, went to make some tea and had it with a pile of cookies watching news, came back in 15 minutes, and found desktop still loading! Task Manager showed 100% CPU load, and i could not wait for it's calm down. basic application calls took MUCH longer time, and produced MUCH poorer feedback on my actions. It looked like i was running it on older i286!
Maybe someone can test this situation more precisely, but i can make the following conclusions:
In general Linux starts up slower than windows, because most of the init actions are done subsequently!. That is why switching cache impacted on general OS perfomance in Linux less than in Windows.
I suspect Windows and its applications are build with better optimization for parallel running and cache utilization, i suspect, that Windows start up was such drammatically influenced by cache disabling because most of init actions were executing concurrently, while switching context should utilize cache intensively too.
It means, that: Linux suits better for running on LOW-END machines, and has far more abilities for optimizing perfomance on modern CPU's. Most likely that this is a GCC compiler issue wich needs to perform better application's optimizing (and own perfomance too!).
RESUME:
to increase perfomance, Windows user shoud upgrade his Hardware, while Linux user needs only to update his Software!
thank you for you time.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
participants (1)
-
Jostein Berntsen