Desktop Kernels

Juneau · #1 11th August 2004, 10:58 PM

Hey everyone!

I saw the link to Desktop Kernels on fedoranews.org.

Right about then I was ready to try anything because my desktop was slow as hell and barely usable...I have a P3 700 btw, but I did'nt want Linux on the new PC a P4 3.2.

So I downloaded the Kernel and it has increased speed and My Core 2 is now faster than my windows XP installation.

So for anyone using Fedora Core 2 as a desktop I would highly recommend this! It really increases performance!

http://apt.bea.ki.se/kernel-desktop/

Ug · #2 11th August 2004, 11:03 PM

Moved to Fedora Focus - as its more general and shouldn't really be a "how-to".

foolish · #3 11th August 2004, 11:20 PM

I would like to see some real benchmarks about this, as the the risk of placebo is rather high.

crackers · #4 12th August 2004, 04:06 AM

"Lies, damned lies, and benchmarks," to paraphrase Mark Twain. But I agree, the placebo-effect is rampant. I'd like to see some acutal numbers as well, nonetheless.

ghaefb · #5 12th August 2004, 08:23 AM

Desktop kernel ?!
Never heard of this before....

So it's like Linux kernel optimized for Desktop performance ?

foolish · #6 12th August 2004, 01:26 PM

Read the fedore newsletter, I even posted a link to it on the front page.

Ug · #7 12th August 2004, 09:14 PM

Who reads the front page anyway?

Picomp314 · #8 12th August 2004, 09:24 PM

bah pre-optimized kernels, make your own
i always make myself a new shiny kernel the day that kernel.org releases a new stable 2.6.x

this kernel-desktop seems decidedly undescriptive on the page, i like to know exactly what is in a kernel when i install it; in the case of the FC/RH kernels i always know exactly what is in them ... "EVERYTHING"

crackers · #9 13th August 2004, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Picomp314

"EVERYTHING"

Greedy bugger, ain't we?

ghaefb · #10 13th August 2004, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ug

Who reads the front page anyway?

I know...

Ned · #11 14th August 2004, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Picomp314

bah pre-optimized kernels, make your own
i always make myself a new shiny kernel the day that kernel.org releases a new stable 2.6.x

this kernel-desktop seems decidedly undescriptive on the page, i like to know exactly what is in a kernel when i install it; in the case of the FC/RH kernels i always know exactly what is in them ... "EVERYTHING"

I'm with you - now I have my config file optimised, it only takes me 10 mins to compile my own custom kernel with only the features I need. Highly minimal. Plus I keep a copy of the latest stable fedora kernel just in case I need a new feature as it contains everything.

To be absolutely honest though, I don't notice any real world performance difference between my highly optimised minimal kernel and the all-in fedora kernel other than the extra free memory I have. I guess on older slower hardware the differences may be more noticable, but it's more likely an insufficient memory issue.

Ned

crackers · #12 14th August 2004, 03:47 AM

I guess I'm kernel-compile-averse because that used to be the only way to get the correct drivers in. 16+ hours on a 386SX16 - and it made the system pretty unusable the whole time because it sucked up 100% CPU. ***shudder***

Picomp314 · #13 14th August 2004, 03:51 AM

yeah i have compiled a new kernel on a 486 before, and i know your hesitance, but i have gotten my compile time down to 7 1/2 minutes, so i no longer worry about this

Ned · #14 14th August 2004, 03:55 AM

16+ hours

I remember running some FFT software back in the days when I had a 486SX (no maths co-pro) and a simple fourier transform would take 28 mins. I bought a 486DX with co-pro and that droped to about 30 seconds

I timed the make bzImage && make_modules on my last compile and it took approx 10 mins on a AthlonXP 2100+ with 256MB. It probably takes me longer to download the source than it does to compile it. Anyway, 10 mins is just enough time to go make a cup of tea

CPU usage is high but I run SETI 24/7 anyway just to keep my cpu's warm

Ned

regeya · #15 31st August 2004, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned

16+ hours

I remember running some FFT software back in the days when I had a 486SX (no maths co-pro) and a simple fourier transform would take 28 mins. I bought a 486DX with co-pro and that droped to about 30 seconds

I timed the make bzImage && make_modules on my last compile and it took approx 10 mins on a AthlonXP 2100+ with 256MB. It probably takes me longer to download the source than it does to compile it. Anyway, 10 mins is just enough time to go make a cup of tea

CPU usage is high but I run SETI 24/7 anyway just to keep my cpu's warm

Ned

Am I thinking right that the 486SXs were just 486s with the fpu disabled?

I had the lamest 486 ever: it was a Cyrix 486DLC/40. Yes, DLC. Yes, 40MHz. It plugged into a 386 mobo. :o Fortunately the machine also had the optional FPU chip. Running an X server on this thing was a chore (especially since I had a whopping 8mb of RAM in the thing), but I'd tweaked the hell out of it. I was bound and determined to run X. I actually had it running respectably well before lightning took the machine out. I only had 4 VTs running (using mingetty) and anything that could run /bin/ash instead of bash did, and any script that could be ended with an exec foo instead of just foo was ended that way. It was amazing how many shells would be running in the background at that time. startx was a big offender as I recall, as were a number of slackware's scripts. For some reason, with tons more memory these days, people have figured out that having a gazillion shells running in the background just ain't cool.

I've tried this kernel and I'm not too impressed. Anyone messed with vanilla + selective preempt yet? I'm looking for something that'll be kinder and gentler during audio recording.