• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

That's it, 2.6 sucks.

This topic is 5119 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

A while ago i posted here about the new 2.6 kernel i had just installed on my Debian system; and i was frustrated because the new kernel isn''t as fast as i was expecting (everybody made such a big deal of its performance...)... actually, it wasn''t any faster in my opinion. But now, i''m all frustration. I just installed the 2.6.0 on another computer, a pentium 2, it''s a laptop. And it''s not a bit faster - even though it''s an old hardware (people was saying it would run faster on older hardware, etc). Actually, i''m pretty sure my system now is slower. Boy, my computer is crawling like never, talk about S L O W. But this is the greatest news: now my 2.4 kernel is not recognizing my eth0! Briliant! I''m stuck inside this crappy kernel. God, somebody help me. The 2.6 sucks, that''s it. I''m thinking about compiling 2.6.2 with Con Kolivas'' performance patches... but now i''m so frustrated, i only wish my 2.4 would work like before! Victor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
quote:
Original post by -vic-
Actually, i''m pretty sure my system now is slower . Boy, my computer is crawling like never, talk about S L O W.

What is slow? Are you running X? Is anything being niced or reniced?

quote:
Original post by -vic-
But this is the greatest news: now my 2.4 kernel is not recognizing my eth0! Briliant!

How odd. What extra things needed to be upgraded on that system to get 2.6 running? It''s probably one of those extra upgrades causing it somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by -vic-
A while ago i posted here about the new 2.6 kernel i had just installed on my Debian system; and i was frustrated because the new kernel isn''t as fast as i was expecting (everybody made such a big deal of its performance...)... actually, it wasn''t any faster in my opinion.

But now, i''m all frustration. I just installed the 2.6.0 on another computer, a pentium 2, it''s a laptop. And it''s not a bit faster - even though it''s an old hardware (people was saying it would run faster on older hardware, etc).

Actually, i''m pretty sure my system now is slower . Boy, my computer is crawling like never, talk about S L O W.

But this is the greatest news: now my 2.4 kernel is not recognizing my eth0! Briliant! I''m stuck inside this crappy kernel. God, somebody help me. The 2.6 sucks, that''s it.

I''m thinking about compiling 2.6.2 with Con Kolivas'' performance patches... but now i''m so frustrated, i only wish my 2.4 would work like before!

Victor.


See if dma is enabled for your disks (run hdparm in console to see if it''s on). After I upgraded to 2.6 things were slower because dma wasn''t enabled (turned out I had to enable support for my chipset in Device Drivers -> ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by -vic-
A while ago i posted here about the new 2.6 kernel i had just installed on my Debian system; and i was frustrated because the new kernel isn''t as fast as i was expecting (everybody made such a big deal of its performance...)... actually, it wasn''t any faster in my opinion.

But now, i''m all frustration. I just installed the 2.6.0 on another computer, a pentium 2, it''s a laptop. And it''s not a bit faster - even though it''s an old hardware (people was saying it would run faster on older hardware, etc).

Actually, i''m pretty sure my system now is slower . Boy, my computer is crawling like never, talk about S L O W.

But this is the greatest news: now my 2.4 kernel is not recognizing my eth0! Briliant! I''m stuck inside this crappy kernel. God, somebody help me. The 2.6 sucks, that''s it.

I''m thinking about compiling 2.6.2 with Con Kolivas'' performance patches... but now i''m so frustrated, i only wish my 2.4 would work like before!

Victor.


I just forwarded your email to Linus, and he said he''s going to pack it in. Since some guy on a message board who can''t even get his laptop to recognize a network card thinks it "sucks" I guess that means they might as well just scrap the whole "linux" thing. Good thing you told us, or millions of people would have kept using it. Give me a minute while I format my workstation and all my servers and put win xp on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I am going to compile 2.6 kernel. I found three variants in dselect, which one to use?

2.6.0-2
2.6.0-test11
2.6.0-test9

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven''t bothered with 2.6 on my Debian laptop yet, basically because from what I''ve seen linux-wlan-ng isn''t working properly with the 2.6 line yet.

However, I''m definitely looking forward to things like ALSA being included in 2.6 as well as some other things

.z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Null and Void
What is slow? Are you running X? Is anything being niced or reniced?



Browsing pages; Java applets, etc... i really had the impression X is slower. But i wish i had some real numbers. I''ve reniced XFree to 0 (Debian defaults to -10, as you know), but didn''t feel much (if any) difference.

quote:

See if dma is enabled for your disks (run hdparm in console to see if it''s on). After I upgraded to 2.6 things were slower because dma wasn''t enabled (turned out I had to enable support for my chipset in Device Drivers -> ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support)



I''m on 2.4 now... and here it is enabled; but i''ll check that when i boot 2.6.

quote:

I just forwarded your email to Linus, and he said he''s going to pack it in. Since some guy on a message board who can''t even get his laptop to recognize a network card thinks it "sucks" I guess that means they might as well just scrap the whole "linux" thing. Good thing you told us, or millions of people would have kept using it. Give me a minute while I format my workstation and all my servers and put win xp on them.



If it makes you happy, here''s an ouput of my uname -r: 2.4.20-xfs.

So, yeah, i''ve got my network back, and i''m back to the 2.4 kernel.

Hum, have you tested 2.6 already? On how many machines? Did those machines have new or old hardware? I''ve seen many people saying the new kernel feels like you''ve got new hardware, blablabla; well i feel no difference. Hum, actually, there is a difference: the mouse cursor moves faster. Not that i needed it to move faster, but anyway...

By the way, justed compiled 2.6.2 with Con Kolivas'' desktop tuning patches. Err... no difference. Supermount is great and all; but the CFQ scheduler didn''t make much of a difference here.

I wish i had some real numbers. Do you know how can i benchmark and get some real numbers? That would be great.

Victor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had similar problems with my laptop when I installed 2.6.0 (I''m using gentoo). I found that to get it to recognize my ethernet card I needed to re-install the latest version of pmccia tools and hotplugging tools, and I had to be sure the eisa-pci bridge was enabled in the kernel which I don''t think I did in 2.4.22. Also, be sure to use the kernel level drivers, and not the cs-pmccia drivers in 2.6. I''ve found that the 2.6.2 isn''t quicker per say, but it is much more responsive when doing more than one thing at once. Stick with it and you''ll get it working.

Cheers,

Bob

----------------------------------
I''m not online

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
I am going to compile 2.6 kernel. I found three variants in dselect, which one to use?

2.6.0-2
2.6.0-test11
2.6.0-test9



2.6.0-2

The ones labelled "test" are just that: tests. Also commonly known as "release candidates". The stage between "release" and "beta".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I successfully compiled and installed the 2.6 kernel on a Pentium II running RedHat 9. At least on my hardware, there was a noticeable decrease in response time (i.e. things seemed to respond faster). However, the speed increase isn''t hugely noticeable in most applications. I wouldn''t expect any kind of miracle/unrealistic performance increase out of the new kernel. As for your other machine, it''s too bad that things are running slower. I really like 2.6 and there''s no way I''m ever going back to 2.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Doc

2.6.0-2
2.6.0-test11
2.6.0-test9



2.6.0-2

The ones labelled "test" are just that: tests. Also commonly known as "release candidates". The stage between "release" and "beta".

Okei, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by -vic-
But this is the greatest news: now my 2.4 kernel is not recognizing my eth0! Briliant! I''m stuck inside this crappy kernel. God, somebody help me. The 2.6 sucks, that''s it.


2.6 working well!

But,

I am having problems with eth0 too. There was an ERROR for eth0 in startup.. can''t find it in any log :\ However I get network working with modprobe 8139too and then dhclient. Sometimes dhclient cannot discover connetion though :\

Whats up? I''ll try to catch trhe error..

Yours,
the ap above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Few boots and I got it:

ERROR while getting interface flags: no such device eth0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Ok, compiled network driver to kernel instead as module and it works now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. did you think that 2.4 did so much so horribly wrong, that upgrading to 2.6 would magically make your computer run faster?

Now where''s that thread in the lounge about negative CPU usage....

When people say it runs faster, my friend, they mean they can run a ''find /'' and play a movie in mplayer without seeing the kind of skipping they saw on 2.4 (or more commonly, compile a kernel and play mp3s at the same time)

So, uhhh, let that hype be a lesson to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by C-Junkie
Wow. did you think that 2.4 did so much so horribly wrong, that upgrading to 2.6 would magically make your computer run faster?

Now where''s that thread in the lounge about negative CPU usage....

When people say it runs faster, my friend, they mean they can run a ''find /'' and play a movie in mplayer without seeing the kind of skipping they saw on 2.4 (or more commonly, compile a kernel and play mp3s at the same time)

So, uhhh, let that hype be a lesson to you!


Why bashing. He was clearly frustrated, and not so experienced. So just try help if you can or create discussion, otherwice just shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m running 2.6.2 at the moment on my slackware box
in my opinion the system seems slightly more responsive, and i havent seen any problems with resource eating activities (like compiling) slowing down the rest of the machine
The only problem I had was getting my sound card working in the 2.6 series, but after i worked that out, everything has been smoothe sailing.
All in all, I rather like the new kernel, but, as mentioned, its no magic bullet -- its better, but it wont bring world piece (that feature is being worked on for the 2.8 series, however)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by PoesRaven
world piece


Laughs at the implications of "world piece"

wow, that''s one big piece.

heh. piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
IF something not working fix it in the kernel. Post back fixes and bugs instead of complaining. Seriously its horrible how many people complain when they put zero contribution back. The kernel will only get better if more people contribute to getting it running more clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement