Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:27:25 +0100
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?
Message-ID: <20060313182725.GA31211@mars.ravnborg.org>
References: <436c596f0603121640h4f286d53h9f1dd177fd0475a4@mail.gmail.com> <1142237867.3023.8.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1142237867.3023.8.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2337
Lines: 51

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
-
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/