Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14
RE: 'There are a lot of things like time frequency, types of schedulers, less no. of namespaces, size optimization etc...' These are sooner 'cosmetic changes' rather than improvements and could ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Newbie user-f11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sofia, BG
    Posts
    185

    RE: 'There are a lot of things like time frequency, types of schedulers, less no. of namespaces, size optimization etc...'

    These are sooner 'cosmetic changes' rather than improvements and could impose additional risks to the system. (What about data safety, satisfaction of customers, reliability of computation, efficiency of processes, horizontal and vertical compatibility of the OS, etc.)

    RE: ... 'time frequency' ...
    Time frequency often only increases the energy consumption without improving the computation (unless some radical change in the method of computer processing is done), for the system usually 'skips the pulses' that it cannot process.

  2. #12
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by user-f11 View Post
    RE: 'There are a lot of things like time frequency, types of schedulers, less no. of namespaces, size optimization etc...'

    These are sooner 'cosmetic changes' rather than improvements and could impose additional risks to the system. (What about data safety, satisfaction of customers, reliability of computation, efficiency of processes, horizontal and vertical compatibility of the OS, etc.)

    RE: ... 'time frequency' ...
    Time frequency often only increases the energy consumption without improving the computation (unless some radical change in the method of computer processing is done), for the system usually 'skips the pulses' that it cannot process.
    A lot of cosmetic changes which's bound to make the system more responsive or have better throughput (either one). Speaking of responsiveness, over a generic kernel any Linux distro does not feel as responsive as Windows, this includes the higher timer frequency which does have lower throughput as you suggest but makes the system more responsive.

  3. #13
    Linux Newbie user-f11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sofia, BG
    Posts
    185
    RE: 'Speaking of responsiveness, over a generic kernel any Linux distro does not feel as responsive as Windows'

    Right away I can give you an example to the contrary of this statement. My computer platform was slower under XP than it is under F11, and under F10 was even faster than under F11. Not to talk about the printer (HP). I even had somewhere measurements with a chronometer, but I cannot find them now.

    RE: The linux kernel compilations
    The idea was that if the newly compiled kernel is not better than the currently existing ones, it makes no sense. Of course a definition of what does 'better' mean should be given.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    146
    There's a difference between slow, less responsive and less throughput. If you remember, there were talks about a 200 lined patch which made Desktop Linux more responsive, the thing which Con Kolivas was talking about from day 1 he entered the kernel development and till the last day of his development days.

    This's what RT kernels is all about.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •