mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: j4K3xBl4sT3r <jakexblaster@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Which kernel is the best for a small linux system?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:27:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060313182725.GA31211@mars.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1142237867.3023.8.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:17:47AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 21:40 -0300, j4K3xBl4sT3r wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > I've been seeing many Linux versions, with many features, some of them
> > just for the newest branches (2.4.x and 2.6.x), I would like to know
> > for which kind of system each kernel is recommended. On the distros
> > that we see inside the Net there is the 2.4.x series, normally I
> > update to 2.6.x (in case of my Slackware 10.2, even getting problems
> > with some devices). Is that floppy disks uses only 2.0.x and 2.2.x
> > Kernels? If applicable, where can I get (detailed) information about
> > these issues? I'm new on Kernel managing, started doing my own distros
> > at less than one month and would like to know it.
> 
> regardless of the size issue; you should really not start any new
> projects based on 2.4 kernels; they are in deep deep maintenance mode
> for now, but it's unclear how long they will be (I suppose as long as
> people keep sending patches), especially complex security issues should
> worry people ;)
> 
> 2.6 is actively maintained and will be for quite some time :)

Any comments on this:
http://www.denx.de/wiki/Know/Linux24vs26

On another denx.de page I found this summary (so you do not have to
visit the page):
# slow to build: 2.6 takes 30...40% longer to compile
# Big memory footprint in flash: the 2.6 compressed kernel image is
# 30...40% bigger
# Big memory footprint in RAM: the 2.6 kernel needs 30...40% more RAM;
# the available RAM size for applications is 700kB smaller
# Slow to boot: 2.6 takes 5...15% longer to boot into multi-user mode
# Slow to run: context switches up to 96% slower, local communication
# latencies up to 80% slower, file system latencies up to 76% slower,
# local communication bandwidth less than 50% in some cases.

I'm merely asked because I have been pointed to this page several times
and I do nto have numbers for 2.4 versus 2.6.

Note: denx does support 2.6 now.

I do not concur and recommend 2.6 but wanted to know if anyone had more
insight to share.

	Sam

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-03-13 18:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-13  0:40 j4K3xBl4sT3r
2006-03-13  8:00 ` Lexington Luthor
2006-03-15  1:35   ` Grant Coady
2006-03-15  1:46     ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-03-13  8:17 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-03-13 18:03   ` Grant Coady
2006-03-13 18:06     ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-03-14  6:21       ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-14  7:29         ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-14  8:18           ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-14  9:05           ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-14 15:54             ` Willy Tarreau
2006-03-16 15:24             ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-14 10:03         ` Grant Coady
2006-03-14 22:21           ` Russell King
2006-03-15  0:46             ` Grant Coady
     [not found]               ` <20060315080313.GC3166@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
2006-03-15  9:37                 ` Grant Coady
2006-03-15 22:53             ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-03-15 23:32               ` Grant Coady
2006-03-16  4:19                 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-16  8:12                   ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-16  8:31                     ` Lee Revell
2006-03-16  8:55                       ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-16  9:20                         ` Mike Galbraith
2006-03-16  2:55               ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-03-13 18:27   ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2006-03-13 18:41     ` Lee Revell
2006-03-13 19:01       ` Adrian Bunk
2006-03-14  0:18         ` j4K3xBl4sT3r
2006-03-13 19:08     ` Diego Calleja
2006-03-13 22:00     ` Pantelis Antoniou
2006-03-13 22:01       ` j4K3xBl4sT3r
2006-03-13 22:20         ` Pantelis Antoniou
2006-03-13 22:33           ` j4K3xBl4sT3r
2006-03-16 12:03             ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-13 22:25         ` Lee Revell
2006-03-14  3:53           ` Grant Coady
2006-03-15 22:57     ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-03-15 23:10       ` Adrian Bunk
2006-03-16 13:39         ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060313182725.GA31211@mars.ravnborg.org \
    --to=sam@ravnborg.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=jakexblaster@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome