From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:02:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:02:31 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:25746 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:02:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:05:36 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: "Bond, Andrew" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: TPC-C benchmark used standard RH kernel Message-ID: <434201548.1032437133@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <45B36A38D959B44CB032DA427A6E106402D09E42@cceexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net> References: <45B36A38D959B44CB032DA427A6E106402D09E42@cceexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Could we have gotten better performance by patching the kernel? Sure. There are many new features in 2.5 that would enhance database performance. However, the fairly strict support requirements of TPC benchmarking mean that we need to benchmark a kernel that a Linux distributor ships and can support. > Modifications could also be taken to the extreme, and we could have built a screamer kernel that runs Oracle TPC-C's and nothing else. However, that doesn't really tell us anything useful and doesn't help those customers thinking about running Linux. The question also becomes "Who would provide customer support for that kernel?" Unofficial results for 2.5 vs 2.4 (or 2.4-redhatAS) would be most interesting if you're able to gather them, and still have the machine. Most times you can avoid their draconian rules by saying "on a large benchmark test that I can't name but you all know what it is ..." instead of naming it ... ;-) M.