SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: VM Host: Slackware-current, VM Guests: Artix, Venom, antiX, Gentoo, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenIndiana
Posts: 1,011
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazardo
A quick sysbench check with up-to-date 15.0 shows performance differences between 6.1.52 and 6.5.3 are at the background noise level.
Attached is the test script named 'stest.log' per forum restrictions on uplodads.
Hardware: ryzen 9 laptop on AC power.
Cheers,
The only performance problems were intel (and limited to some newer CPUs) related. Issues were fixed in 6.5.3
No performance drop was reported for AMD except AMD Inception Mitigation that depend on workload type so users may not even notice it.
Overall no performance loss expected with the latest kernel when comparing to 6.1.x
No performance drop was reported for AMD except AMD Inception Mitigation that depend on workload type so users may not even notice it.
Overall no performance loss expected with the latest kernel when comparing to 6.1.x
99% of the performance / mitigations dialog is from observations in the server and kernel development environments where side channel awareness is reality, and testing is with mitigations in place.
For LAN environments where performance is important, mitigations=off and DIY self-testing is more useful than other people's opinions.
LQ has an irrational upload policy based on file extension.
My objection has to do with this: Script needs almost 70 GB of disk space.This should be mentioned in the post and not just to script as
Code:
File = 64G
My 10 -year -old son would even break his system... Well, on the one hand, because it should not run every script he finds ... but I still think it should be mentioned in your post not only in script.
Anyway since only I complain, maybe I'm not right.
My objection has to do with this: Script needs almost 70 GB of disk space.This should be mentioned in the post and not just to script as
Code:
File = 64G
My 10 -year -old son would even break his system... Well, on the one hand, because it should not run every script he finds ... but I still think it should be mentioned in your post not only in script.
Anyway since only I complain, maybe I'm not right.
I understand your perspective, but the script writers is different.
The [slackware] forum postings are mostly people resolving technical or preference issues, some fairly complex, and all scripts/code fragments/suggestions assume some degree of domain knowledge to make use of. Note the value was parameterized, not in-lined.
Also 64G is not a magic number, smaller values, even a few GB, work with less accuracy.
Distribution: VM Host: Slackware-current, VM Guests: Artix, Venom, antiX, Gentoo, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenIndiana
Posts: 1,011
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazardo
99% of the performance / mitigations dialog is from observations in the server and kernel development environments where side channel awareness is reality, and testing is with mitigations in place.
For LAN environments where performance is important, mitigations=off and DIY self-testing is more useful than other people's opinions.
no, to see how mitigations can affect the performance, one runs kernel with and without the mitigations. Phoronix is doing this for pretty long time.
Also, if you are testing zen, your test is worthless for general audience.. because there is too many things that can be customized.
no, to see how mitigations can affect the performance, one runs kernel with and without the mitigations. Phoronix is doing this for pretty long time.
Also, if you are testing zen, your test is worthless for general audience.. because there is too many things that can be customized.
...
Did you read the starter post?
*) 'sysbench quick perf test between 6.1 and 6.5' does not imply mitigations or architecture testing.
*) I don't use mitigations on LAN side and have never considered a/b testing.
*) Phoronix ignores results significance. Pretty graphs, a lot of tiny differences that are not useful [to me].
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
