You are not logged in.

#26 2005-05-29 20:20:50

miqorz
Member
Registered: 2004-12-31
Posts: 475

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

phrakture wrote:
miqorz wrote:

Or you guys can compile your own kernel and not use modules at all. The only module I have is for nvidia and I load it via /etc/rc.conf. heh.

that's only a speed increase on module load, and it's barely anything - I recommend against it

I don't do it for speed at all. I just don't like using modules.


http://wiki2.archlinux.org/

Read it. Love it. Live it. Or die.

Offline

#27 2005-05-29 21:46:30

CyberTron
Member
From: Gotland ,Sweden
Registered: 2005-03-17
Posts: 645
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

the fastest kernel I have tested (and is running now) is the ones patched with -cko patchset...very fast and very stable (at least I have not had any trouble at all)

and I agree with migorz, i too don't like modules that much...feels better to have everything inside the kernel...

is there any reason why one should use modules instead? (pros and cons ?)


http://www.linuxportalen.com  -> Linux Help portal for Linux and ArchLinux (in swedish)

Dell Inspiron 8500
Kernel 2.6.14-archck1  (selfcompiled)
Enlightenment 17

Offline

#28 2005-05-29 22:25:14

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Personally, I hate the time it takes to compile the kernel; that's one reason. When I was on dialup, I always compiled, because that way I only had to download the patches, and overall, compiling was faster than downloading.

A more sensible reason for using modules is that those modules not currently in use can be unloaded, taking up less memory. Of course, if they are in the kernel, the portions not in use likely get swapped out (I don't know if this is true).

A rather arcane reason to use modules is that sometimes its nice to reload them on the fly. This doesn't happen much unless you are developing modules or developing with them. I do recall a kernel dev telling me that you didn't have to reboot to get your PS/2 port to "hot plug" a device; you just had to reload the module. As an example.

Dusty

Offline

#29 2005-05-29 22:37:37

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Dusty wrote:

A more sensible reason for using modules is that those modules not currently in use can be unloaded, taking up less memory. Of course, if they are in the kernel, the portions not in use likely get swapped out (I don't know if this is true).

Nope, it isn't.

Modules add flexibility. If you don't need that, don't use them, simple as that. But for kernel devs, generic kernels and lazy people who don't want to reinstall the whole kernel when adding one feature it's great.

Offline

#30 2005-05-30 01:55:19

iBertus
Member
From: Greenville, NC
Registered: 2004-11-04
Posts: 2,228

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

You really shouldn't have everything compiled into the kernel b/c as Dusty stated you may often need to change some settings on the fly and reload the module, instead of rebooting the system.

Also, some 3rd party drivers (ATI, nvidia) have required in the past that certain parts of the kernel be compiled as modules. As a rule I only compile in filesystems and chipset stuff and leave almost everything else as modules.

Offline

#31 2005-05-30 08:47:55

vacant
Member
From: downstairs
Registered: 2004-11-05
Posts: 801

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

i3839 wrote:

Modules add flexibility

I'm not even sure about that for a non-24/7 desktop PC. I used to compile a kernel with everything possible as modules. Why? Because that is the perceived wisdom.

Then I though about it. Do I need to add any parameters to modules? No. If I get new hardware what happens? It boils down to two choices:

1) You compile all modules, ready so you can just add a module
2) You make config, configure the module, compile it and install it

Now (1) is a plain waste of time since you need to shut down your PC to install most hardware still plus compiling an updated kernel takes way longer and (2) saves nothing except you don't have to reboot after - Arch takes 70 second from start to KDE "100% desktop  load" on my Duron 900 and I switch off my PC when not in use, i.e. it boots 3 of 4 times a day anyway.

On the other hand, my kernel with "enable loadable module support" unchecked is under 2MB and I'd argue that loading one 2MB file has got to be quicker that loading 2MB of files scattered around a file system (kernel and  thirty or so seperate module files). I'm not in the least interested in "freeing up" a few hundred K of memomy as I have half a gig.

I've been running like this for a few weeks and don't think I've missed anything?

Offline

#32 2005-05-30 08:52:40

vacant
Member
From: downstairs
Registered: 2004-11-05
Posts: 801

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Dusty wrote:

Personally, I hate the time it takes to compile the kernel; that's one reason.

When I added a second soundcard and did a "make" on my kernel with "loadable module support" unchecked, it just compiled the sound card code - which is the whole point of make. It was no slower.

Offline

#33 2005-05-30 11:45:52

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Depends, i've run both with modules and non modules.

Personally, I hate the time it takes to compile the kernel; that's one reason.

I agree, 7 minutes is far long to wait. Heck, i dont even wait 7 minutes for a train or bus, let alone spend 7 minutes browsing a forum while a kernel compiles.

It's not like i have beefy hardware either, 1.4ghz pentium m. To save battery I run it at 600mhz, at which speed the kernel only takes 16 minutes to compile.

It's really personal choice whether you compile your drivers as modules or in the kernel, i havnt ever had any that i've needed to pass parameters, so in kernel hasnt ever been a problem.

It's only recently that i moved usb, firewire and a few other modules out of the kernel into module land, to save some time on bootup. I have X and rc.multi boot at the same time, and i created a script /etc/rc.d/modules which I put in my daemons line that loads up my modules, firewire, usb, network, at the same time as X. I have autologin turned on, and I get to a xfce4 desktop in under a minute, ion3 in even less.

Offline

#34 2005-05-30 14:28:14

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

vacant wrote:
Dusty wrote:

Personally, I hate the time it takes to compile the kernel; that's one reason.

When I added a second soundcard and did a "make" on my kernel with "loadable module support" unchecked, it just compiled the sound card code - which is the whole point of make. It was no slower.

Ah, but I use the stock kernel, and that's much faster than compiling. :-D  I never noticed any performance gain from compiling my own.

Dusty

Offline

#35 2005-05-30 15:06:50

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

vacant, modules add flexibility, if you want it or not. As you made very clear, you don't need the flexibility modules offer, as you don't make any use of them. You only change your kernel config when changing hardware or upgrading the kernel: using modules doesn't add any value then.

All parameters you would give to a module can also be given on the kernel command line, so that's no reason to use something as a module, except if you need to reload it often to figure out the correct options.

iphitus wrote:

I agree, 7 minutes is far long to wait. Heck, i dont even wait 7 minutes for a train or bus, let alone spend 7 minutes browsing a forum while a kernel compiles.

You're joking, right? Waiting 7 minutes on a train or bus is the bare minimum here, and when it arrives only 7 minutes too late you should be glad too. ;-)

Things I have as modules:
iptables stuff: so it's easier to add and remove features I don't need. Also only the things I need are actually automatically loaded.

nfs: Just to keep some bloat of my kernel, and to see how much mem it really uses.

usb and a bunch of other modules to get my USB modem working: I don't deem it worthy enough to be part of the elite core which is loaded unconditionaly. ;-)

drm + videocard driver: easier keep an eye on it this way.

i2c stuff for lm_sensors: Just playing with it a bit.

These are the loaded modules, the never loaded ones are those which may be used once, but most of the time aren't, like modules for floppy, cdrom, sound, printer and certain filesystems. Then there are more toying modules I may use, like pkgen, oprofile and QoS things.

So to sum it up, I mainly use modules for stuff I'm not sure about that I really want it, though still often need for one thing or the other. It's a nice gray area between the hard line of being in kernel and being out of it. And my usage of modules is one of the more irrational ones, imagine people who really want to use modules, like kernel devs working on one who don't want to reboot al the time.

Offline

#36 2005-05-30 15:28:09

iBertus
Member
From: Greenville, NC
Registered: 2004-11-04
Posts: 2,228

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

What if some device attached to your system appears to have a buggy linux driver which is causing a system hang during bootup? If you compile everything in then you have a larger problem then if you use modules, just bootup from a live cd, edit rc.conf and go on with life until you can figure out a solution. This isn't the case with a non-modular kernel.

Offline

#37 2005-05-30 15:32:53

vacant
Member
From: downstairs
Registered: 2004-11-05
Posts: 801

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Dusty wrote:

Ah, but I use the stock kernel, and that's much faster than compiling. :-D  I never noticed any performance gain from compiling my own.

So now we've come full circle and you've still not tried a CK kernel ?

Offline

#38 2005-05-30 16:13:02

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

You should always have a working kernel version. In my case that's just an older kernel version which worked before I upgraded my kernel. You may choose for a liveCD, but whatever the case, you should always be able to boot to a working kernel and fix any kernel problems.

I'm trying out the CK kernel, but it's hard for me to notice any differences since my hardware upgrades. That said, CK does seem to be slightly more responsive than mainline.

Offline

#39 2005-05-30 22:32:11

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Dusty: I use the CK patches on my kernels, so I do notice a difference.

I stopped using Arch's kernels months ago, I am running on reiser4 which they do not support.

As for backup kernels, i've got multiple kernels, 2.6.9-nitro2 which always worked good, 2.6.10-ck5, and a stable 2.6.11 with reiser4,

i like compiling kernels big_smile

iphitus

Offline

#40 2005-05-31 08:57:41

CyberTron
Member
From: Gotland ,Sweden
Registered: 2005-03-17
Posts: 645
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

I use the cko patches, wich are the ck patches and more big_smile

*more is good*

well, atleast on my system, it is very responsive and feels very fast...

the cko patches can be found here: http://kem.p.lodz.pl/~peter/cko/


http://www.linuxportalen.com  -> Linux Help portal for Linux and ArchLinux (in swedish)

Dell Inspiron 8500
Kernel 2.6.14-archck1  (selfcompiled)
Enlightenment 17

Offline

#41 2005-05-31 11:00:27

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

CyberTron wrote:

I use the cko patches, wich are the ck patches and more big_smile

*more is good*

well, atleast on my system, it is very responsive and feels very fast...

the cko patches can be found here: http://kem.p.lodz.pl/~peter/cko/

aye, cko are alright, i use them on occassion too.

Offline

#42 2005-05-31 14:23:15

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

I use the stock kernel - the minor performance differences with all these patchsets doesn't interest me considering it's going to take me time to compile... I like to use my machine

Offline

#43 2005-05-31 14:30:14

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Its so nice to know i can be away and know you'll still be here to voice my opinions phrakture. :-)

Dusty

Offline

#44 2005-05-31 14:32:13

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Dusty wrote:

Its so nice to know i can be away and know you'll still be here to voice my opinions phrakture. :-)

Dusty

cheers  big_smile

Offline

#45 2005-05-31 14:48:49

CyberTron
Member
From: Gotland ,Sweden
Registered: 2005-03-17
Posts: 645
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

phrakture wrote:

I use the stock kernel - the minor performance differences with all these patchsets doesn't interest me considering it's going to take me time to compile... I like to use my machine


well you areright, but you do not have all te fanc stuff in a vanilla kernel, like reiserfs4 and vesatng...

and for the compile time, it aint that long, and just put it in the background and do the work you wanted to do, like browsing the web big_smile


http://www.linuxportalen.com  -> Linux Help portal for Linux and ArchLinux (in swedish)

Dell Inspiron 8500
Kernel 2.6.14-archck1  (selfcompiled)
Enlightenment 17

Offline

#46 2005-05-31 15:03:29

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

CyberTron wrote:

well you areright, but you do not have all te fanc stuff in a vanilla kernel, like reiserfs4 and vesatng...

I'm with you on reiser4 (though I'd still just wait for it), but vesatng is one of those "frills" which I was talking about

Offline

#47 2005-06-01 07:10:20

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

Not all of these patchsets have 'minor performance differences' phrakture, some of them do make a substantial difference.

I use the CK patchset, and using it, there is a *noticable* increase in system responsiveness and speed. Enemy Territory plays much better, and CS and other games via Cedega, are miles and miles better than with the stock kernel. With the stock kernel I get all sorts of audio stuttering and a lower FPS, with CK they are silky smooth.

CK isnt just a silly patchset, the work into it is real, and it isnt dirty hacks to gain a bit of speed here and there.

iphitus

Offline

#48 2005-06-01 07:45:39

cactus
Taco Eater
From: t͈̫̹ͨa͖͕͎̱͈ͨ͆ć̥̖̝o̫̫̼s͈̭̱̞͍̃!̰
Registered: 2004-05-25
Posts: 4,615
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

http://kerneltrap.org/node/4426

I would prefer to have a bit more stability in my kernel, than it appears the ck patchset makes it a goal at providing. Experimental, yes. Fast, mayhaps.
But on my server, not likely for now.


"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍

Offline

#49 2005-06-01 09:37:13

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

cactus wrote:

http://kerneltrap.org/node/4426

I would prefer to have a bit more stability in my kernel, than it appears the ck patchset makes it a goal at providing. Experimental, yes. Fast, mayhaps.
But on my server, not likely for now.

CK is 'experimental'.

Just like reiser4 is 'experimental'. Reiser4 I have been running for at least 10 months and have had no issues whatsoever, none. Many many others have had similar results.

Coincidentally I have been running CK patches on my computer for a similar length of time, and havent had a single lockup or stability issue caused by any of Con's patches. Con puts a lot of work into making his staircase scheduler stable, and it has matured substantially since that kerneltrap page was posted.

There havnt been any reports on the mailing list of lockups due to the staircase scheduler or any other patches that havnt been traceable to upstream issues in the kernel for months.

Others on the mailing list use the ck patches on their servers, so the patches are well and widely tested. I myself have a 2.6.11 kernel patched with the CK patches running on my server, it's uptime has been 40 days, last reboot was when i rebooted into the new kernel.

My primary computer is a laptop, so it doesnt spent large expanses of time turned on, occasionally 2 days stints in the holidays or whatnot at most. CK hasnt let me down.

I personally because of the aforementioned evidence, would consider CK stable.

Before you nag it, give it a shot, you might be surprised at the nice boost in interactivity you get. I'm not claiming it to make your system omg twice as  fast, but it does make a noticable difference to the responsiveness of a system, especially when doing multiple things at once that would previously have slowed a mainstream kernel.

iphitus

Offline

#50 2005-06-01 10:31:36

dtw
Forum Fellow
From: UK
Registered: 2004-08-03
Posts: 4,431
Website

Re: Making Arch Faster[solved]

i use ck too, cko to be precise.  best i have tried

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB