Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:12:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:12:04 -0400 Received: from august.V-LO.krakow.pl ([62.121.131.17]:47115 "EHLO august.V-LO.krakow.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:11:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 22:12:46 +0200 (CEST) From: "[solid]" To: Subject: Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4 In-Reply-To: <02ca01c1541d$391c5f30$c800000a@Artifact> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org froma completely non-developer point of view: to me it seems that th overall speed of 2.4 kernels is much faster, even on machines like p133 16 mb ram. it may sound silly, but software justs tends to do its work faster while using the 2.4 series. especially operations like mounting a big filesystem(<5GB) which happen almost immediatly, comparing to 5-10second times of mounting 10GB under 2.2. i even managed to work on a 386 20 mhz/4mb ram laptop witch 8mb swap on a very slow disk, and it was quite workable, although it had very few kernel options compiled in(well, there was networking!:) and when i added plip it was just to big...but i thing that the days of computers with 4 megs of ram are over now, and these 200-400KB difference in kernel image size doesn't make such a big difference. the scary fact is, that the next kernel series(the stable one after 2.5) might not fit on a floppy! :) but for now...to me 2.4 seems the best choice for any kind of linux box. [solid] Registered Linux user number 212159 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/