2.4 vs. 2.6

skoal · 2005-02-12 17:30:17

Making this kernel comparison is pretty easy. But, is there anyone else out there who still has a 2.4 kernel running on an old box, server or otherwise. I'd be interested in hearing what you find most perceivable or noticeable while running either of these two kernels.

I have a 2.4.20 kernel sitting on my other partition that I boot into as a recovery. I guess I've gotten so spoiled in 2.6, when I booted into 2.4 the other day, the first thing I noticed (visibly) performance wise:

While running XMMS, upatedb, and find at the same time, I had several noticeable pauses, including a skip or two in XMMS. When I booted back into 2.6, I did the exact same thing and it never skipped a beat.

Really impressive. Really.

Honestly, I couldn't say the same for even Windows 2000 when I had it on this exact same rig a while back. When I hit my hard drive hard, this 2.6 I/O schedulerer really shines...

Gullible Jones · 2005-02-12 17:39:02

Yes... 2.4 was a good kernel, but 2.6 *rocks*.

kth5 · 2005-02-12 19:44:37

i think 2.4 still is great since nothing but some strange drivers in there is in testing anymore. so if you really don't want to try your luck, go with the 2.4.x series.
still, i can't say the 2.6 branch is less stable in general anymore but a few things aren't quite set yet. like all the scheduler stuff which only recently (hopefully) was made a decision on.
oh, i think 2.6 runs a *LOT* slower on machiens with only very little amounts of RAM. from what i can remember, i've had no problems running Xfree86, KDE 2.1 and Xmms playing mp3s with 2.4 (or still 2.2 even) on my Pentium 233MMX with only 32MB RAM. the 2.6 kernel makes the machine swap before X is even up nowadays... :-/

lucke · 2005-05-09 16:35:55

Are there any other advantages of 2.4 over 2.6 in server use, apart from 2.4 being more tested/stable/reliable and 2.6 not being suited for ancient hardware?

jerem · 2005-05-09 17:57:50

From what I've once heard of, 2.6 kernels are more resistant to heavy workload for server usage.

Generally speaking, 2.6 has only advantages on powerful(ie not old) machines.

What you may find more difficult is the hundreds of new options in the 2.6 kernel if you compile and customize it yourself.

DarkPath · 2005-05-09 21:25:23

I like the 2.6 series, mostly because of the fantastic speed/usability increases already mentioned... but also because the 2.6 kernels actually have a module to support my NIC.

Really though, the I/O schedulers are what make the 2.6 kernels shine, as far as I'm concerned. The upcoming support for inotify will also make things a bit easier as monitoring files should be a breeze.

ozar · 2005-05-09 22:31:36

I can see running 2.4 on an already running server, but I'd prefer 2.6 for new installs.

Stinky · 2005-05-10 03:06:04

I agree that 2.6 seems quite a bit faster than 2.4. I actually run both. 2.6 in Arch on my main desktop. 2.4 in Slackware on my server/router/firewall. The MAIN reason I keep 2.4 on it is because I'm really familiar with the config options and can roll a highly customized kernel with only the options I need. I have't become that familiar with all the new 2.6 options, but am working on it. I'll upgrade it eventually.

shadowhand · 2005-05-10 08:10:24

2.6 is indeed faster than 2.4 for desktop usage, but from what I understand, 2.4 is perferred for "if it fails, kill the admin" situations because the 2.6 series changes too fast in all kinds of ways for production use.

I'm a huge fan of 2.6 though, and I've been using it since 2.5.9, no complaints, except a few issues with CD burning in the early versions, but those have been cleared up with upgrades to cdrecord.

iphitus · 2005-05-10 09:16:45

I couldnt even run 2.4 on this computer, reiser4 doesnt go on it.

2.6 for me is a big step forward, with a new improved graphics driver, udev, wireless driver - ipw2100, and reiser4.
all of which dont run in 2.4.

skoal: if you think the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 was big in regards to your xmms not skipping etc, you should try the CK kernel. Con Kolivas' staircase scheduler is an awesome piece of work, and I see a notable increase in responsiveness and interactivity whille running it.

lucke · 2005-05-10 09:39:32

So, there's actually a noticable difference between O(1) and staircase?

Lemme check it ;-)

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-10 10:04:58

Hmm, maybe I'll try CK. How stable is it?

scarecrow · 2005-05-10 11:23:12

Gullible Jones wrote:

Hmm, maybe I'll try CK. How stable is it?

From my rather limited experience, pretty stable, and offering some very nice goodies over vanilla. In fact, it's the only patched kernel that I find useful.

iphitus · 2005-05-10 11:44:19

Gullible Jones wrote:

Hmm, maybe I'll try CK. How stable is it?

It's a helluva lot more stable and bugfree than -mm....

it's aim is:

These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness with specific emphasis on the desktop, but suitable to any workload.

so it's generally, very stable. I am on the mailing list, and as of late, there's been no major problems or anything with it. hasnt been for a while too!

if you want CK with a bit more, try:
http://kem.p.lodz.pl/~peter/cko/
which has some extra patches like reiser4 and fbsplash. or just do what i do and reverse the fbsplash patch and apply bootsplash.

iphitus

Arch Linux

#1 2005-02-12 17:30:17

2.4 vs. 2.6

#2 2005-02-12 17:39:02

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#3 2005-02-12 19:44:37

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#4 2005-05-09 16:35:55

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#5 2005-05-09 17:57:50

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#6 2005-05-09 21:25:23

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#7 2005-05-09 22:31:36

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#8 2005-05-10 03:06:04

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#9 2005-05-10 08:10:24

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#10 2005-05-10 09:16:45

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#11 2005-05-10 09:39:32

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#12 2005-05-10 10:04:58

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#13 2005-05-10 11:23:12

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

#14 2005-05-10 11:44:19

Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6

Board footer