I noticed it was an almost 2 years old benchmark, I just used it as an example and it was the only one I've found. I got curious about custom kernels, just wanted to know if they were worth it. And that is right, for x86_64 slackware too, it runs 3.10.17 kernel version.

Since you don't use Slackware it will be forgiven that you don't know that in Slackware's release versions kernels are never updated (well, almost never) ;).
It is the responsibility of the user to keep track of security updates and install newer kernels. But the user is not all alone, if you look in /testing/source in the repository you will see that there are configuration files for the 3.12 kernel.

I am not crazy about security and I trust Volkerding and Linux enough to not get crazy about new kernel versions.

TobiSGD
fair enough altho it strikes me, that compiling takes time and is hw dependent and hence back to the original theme


You can go faster with less bloat

KDE and Gnome/variants are more bloated than others
XFCE is a decent compromise
I use Enlightenment but I have a decent video card etc

Next look at what services you have running either on startup or continuous
Naturally my web browser with its features is a bit bloated compared to lighter ones
----chrome without disabling some features is more intensive than firefox---without disabling some features
YMMV

I am using XFCE, I can't stand Gnome 3, KDE 4 (KDE 3 was tolerable), Unity and every other bloated wm. I thought about using a *box wm but I don't really know, it might be a bit too much.

I am a recovering speed freak... well, I don't mean from any stupid chemicals (unless that includes nitromethane) but as a teen I was an obsessed hot rodder and by the time I got a P133 to effectively become a p200 I was hooked on overclocking. I would overclock your phone given the chance (probably draw the line at toasters but hey... maybe we can shave 20 secs off that time LOL). It is possible I will tear up if someone says Celeron 300A in conversation, but then that's the kind of friends I have. For a time I was also a rabid "kernel shaver". I said "was" because the release of the 2.6 kernel changed all that.

The 2.4 kernel had 3400 kloc and it wasn't too hard to get the bzImage down under 1.4M where it would fit on a floppy and because it didn't unload modules like the 6000 kloc 2.6 kernel, it was well worth shaving it to be essentially "embedded" ie: only existing hardware supported and no hardware supported that was not on the system. This improved boot times and because the kernel, the actual kernel, was accessed sometimes many times a second, it improved speed of the whole system. This has been virtualized. No longer does the entire actual kernel swing like some dead weight.

The only remaining speed advantage to a small kernel is boot times, assuming you're no longer using a 2.4 kernel.

I am quite involved in audio recording so another reason I did and still do compile custom kernels is to create a realtime, low latency beast, essential for crucial timings in track mixing and overdubbing, especially after many "takes". This speed boost is still available and rightfully mentioned in Alien Bob's "How To" for custom kernel building. That and selecting your (nearly) exact CPU and not accepting i486, i586 for an i7 or whatever has a nice cumulative effect, making the system smooth and responsive.

Presently there are zero kernel speed boosts available to any would-be kernel hot rodders that are not mentioned in Bob's How To, and only go low latency if your hardware is known solid. I still overclock some but it is all so pedestrian and expected now that it has largely lost it's renegade thrill. However as a hangover perhaps, I still don't trust stock coolers and always get a monstrous cooler. Heat is the Enemy!

A newer kernel might offer some benefits but beware that there are cases where slower operation times actually turn out to have better stability, overall reliability, and in some cases, work as the manufacturer intended. Optimal performance means simply that, the operation in question runs at it's optimal speed regardless of how fast or slow that is.

When you think about getting a new kernel to build for your system, plan carefully and see what's available. Right now on LFS I'm running 3.12.3 which was from the stable line. It's stable and runs my hardware as I need it. It's built off using the defconfig method to auto-detect the architecture and most basic hardware components, with additions through menuconfig added required by the LFS/BLFS books, and my hardware system driver specifications. It's very trimmed down as far as kernels go however so my memory footprint is very small.

I thought about trying to compile the kernel with the only things my machine (reading everything) but I don't think it is worth it. I even thought about trying to tweaking my boot time customizing the rc files but I only turn on my machine once a day so it is not that much of a big deal. The only thing I do is to try to use lightweight apps but only if I like the experience. Navigating throught something like "links" is as lightweight as it can be but that doesnt' mean I am gonna use it. I think it is better to act this way, otherwise I would go crazy thinking about every option I could change to improve my system. Which is something kinda funny to realize, considering I am setting up a Gentoo box now. Anyways, this made me lol.

Just a comment for the record - Hot Rodders sneer at "what the manufacturer intended".

At least half the performance AND safety features of modern gasoline powered vehicles are directly due to such sneering. PC manufacturers, like car manufacturers, don't like "hobbyists" looking under the hood. They tend to hide nuts 'n bolts and never admit that they need substantial cooling or can benefit from tweaking. If it wasn't for overclockers your typical OEM PC would still be using a single 80mm fan, if that, and there would be no accommodation for fan or cpu throttling or many other performance and convenience features. Manufacturers were forced to catch up.

Read, experiment, take notes, be careful and do what you will.

Just as a reminder. Sometmes a new kernel is a necessity. On my Zenbook ux31 all kernels >3.9.x failed, until it was operating again under 3.12.1. I learned the hard way to install new kernels additionally, instead of updating :)

Oh geez here we go again.... what is this talk of "bloat" when referring to Linux? Unlike Windows just having lots of stuff installed does not constitute bloat. One can trim down KDE to the nubs and just shutoff services right and left. Is default KDE Plasma Desktop more resource heavy than Blackbox, of course... than XFCE or even Enlightenment? Yes...default. But one can pile up services and features in those as well. If you need or want those services, who is qualified to call that bloat? If you don't need nor want those, just shut those off.

Besides, ram and hard drives are cheap so why not get all the features you can use?... even explore what you might like to use. If you look at the capability built in to even just KDE's run command most people would be shocked (if you don't have KDE installed so you can see this for yourself by clicking on the little wrench icon next to the Run dialog, just look here for a shadow of a clue ). If you see what Plasmoids can do now most people would be shocked. Can you use those features? You're never going to find out unless you try.

In real life a Dune Buggy can run circles around a Lincoln Town car but not in the PC world and which would you rather have for a long trip?

enorbet

excuse me but as I am the one to have said "more bloated"
I was not implying Linux was more bloated than Windows so pls spare me your ranting,
I am the only one allowed to rant here.....cos I said I was ranting but you have not prefaced your comments to show its a rant

I prefer Toyota.....giggles

astrogeek, this is hilarious

That's because I wasn't ranting and I never thought you were saying Linux is more bloated than windows, though perhaps my exasperation at mythology shows through :P It's just amazing how long such myths persist. I find references to bloat most commonly come from Gentoo and Arch users who revel in minimalistic installs. In truth, those distros make that work pretty well for them as long as you stick to the right repositories and don't try to make them be something they are not meant to be, such as really good at compiling from source.

Whats chaps me (though Astrogeek said it in a much more hilarious way) is that Arch, Gentoo and other minimalists persist in believing minimalism or CFlag setting makes their distro appreciably faster. It is commendable that Gentoo has managed to continue to exist when it's whole original reason for being was proven in benchmark after benchmark to be a false assumption.

Especially since the Linux kernel became truly modularized, the system cares not how much stuff is installed or capable of running, only what services are actually active. It is possible to have a Linux install that spans hundreds of gigabytes, with 50GB or more installed apps and a kernel of 5MB and on the very same box, another distro (or the same one pared down) to 15-20GB with a 2MB kernel and they will feel absolutely identical in speed, with the minor exception of boot times.

If it makes you feel slim and trim to keep things minimal that's perfectly valid, just don't try to imply that there is some performance advantage to that, or that someone elses system is "bloated" because it uses more hard drive space, having more stuff installed. That is a non sequitur.

I have tested with recompiled glibc and there is a real difference. The difference is not great, but is noticeable because so many things depend on glibc. Same thing goes for the kernel.

Don't expect huge differences, but the difference is there.

Now, I would NOT go so far as to recompile every single package, because that is too tedious. However, I think the benefit of recompiling a few key packages outweighs the cost of a few minutes compile time. On my new machine even the kernel compiles in 5 to 10 minutes. I think it is time well spent :)