Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1

    preemptive kernel, yes or no?

    I'm about to compile a new kernel for my webserver, and I was wondering: should I patch it to preemptive or not?

    Stability isn't much of an issue, i've been running a preemptive kernel at home for years. But is the extra overhead worthwhile for apache and mysql-processes?

    what are your opinions on that?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Worthless. The preemptive kernel produces better results on real-time tasks, but it the extra kernel overhead will only hurt something like a web server.
    Game Servers are the next hot market!
    Slim margins, heavy support, fickle customers, and moronic suppliers!
    Start your own today!

  3. #3
    Now that a lot of folks are moving to 2.6 in a big way, it's worth asking this question again.

    The folks who use linux on desktop systems, a lot of them are saying that premeptive multitasking is best on things like web and sql servers.

    Some of the server folks... well... this is the only opinion I've read from the perspective of someone running a server.

    It's almost as if everyone is of the opinion that preemptive multitasking is for someone else, which is rather funny.

    2.6, indeed, is supposed to be optimized for enterprise - and a very large part of enterprise is server-centric.

    I just had a server move to 2.6 with preemptive multitasking enabled, and it's finally outscoring what it got on 2.4. (It gets about 136 total on WHT Unixbench, and got a tad under 120 under 2.4), but that's sort of apples and oranges. I often look at numbers generated from raw installs of apps like ZenCart/osCommerce, too, and the parse and sql times are now quite a bit lower on my lower spec'd 2.6 (single barton) server than my mucho higher spec'd 2.4 (dual xeon/dual scsi).

    Anyone tried benching different systems against each server?

Posting Permissions

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