|new topic post reply||Tech Patterns Forum Index ==> Liquorix Kernels|
|Back to top||
What is the relationship or main difference between SLH sidux kernel and the liquorix kernel ?FYI I have never used the liquorix kernels and I'm interested to install it up later on. What's the best reason to install it? Is it better than SLH sidux kernel ? Which advantages do I verify after the install ? It would get much more optimized? I want to clear it up to understand better the differences between both.. Do I have to remove the previous kernel ?
techAdminBack to top
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
smxi -> kernel section -> advanced kernel options -> super advanced kernel options, add liquorix sources, then back to advanced, and install liquorix.
Takes much less time to do this than it takes to type the next question ;-)
|Back to top||
Liquorix uses the zen-kernel sources (plus some my own patches whenever deemed useful) and a better default configuration to eliminate issues that I experienced when using slh's kernel to improve performance for users that enjoy using their computer for entertainment, media, and games.
I also modified the package scripts to create firmware in the kernel's version under /lib/firmware/<kernel version>, this lets you install Ubuntu and continue to use this kernel if it works without a hitch in Ubuntu's package configuration. However, something's will work differently such as radeon's kernel mode setting - it's off by default. There's no evidence that is improves performance on the desktop, only regresses it. Until they fix both user and kernel space, I'll keep radeon mode setting off by default.
slh's kernel is a good attempt at a desktop optimized kernel, but no effort seems to put in to whether the technology chosen in the configuration is actually working as expected. For instance, preempt RCU:
Before preemptable tree RCU entered the kernel, preemptable RCU was an option when kernel preemption was selected. However, the process scheduler, CFS, had major issues with applications that required hard deadlines, even if they weren't resource hungry. Using classic RCU fixed this bug and didn't regress latency in any noticeable manner.
Preemptable tree RCU still has it's own problems. Many users on the zen-kernel project notice decreased throughput, and Con of the ck and BFS patches confirmed that it didn't reduce latency that much in his process scheduler's case - therefore was unnecessary for a low latency desktop.
Fortunately, the zen-kernel devs backported Classic RCU, and I use that now in my newest kernel. Low latency without the unusual behavior and throughput oddities of tree RCU.
Another example can be seen in this thread -> liquorix.net/slh-lock-retardation/powertop-recommendation.html
Lucky I saved this page because they deleted it soon after my last response.
EDIT: I sound really mean in that thread, but I don't play games when the other party is lying and avoiding the argument by locking then deleting threads. They did that too with all the smxi threads, moved them all to one group then deleted them a month or two later because they had no argument against smxi and friends, just that they had no control over the code. Because of this, they called smxi a rootkit, which I personally thought was funny, but each to their own.
As you can see, I disagree with more than a handful of decisions slh has incorporated into his distro kernel. If you're really curious, grab both the configuration of the Liquorix kernel and the Sidux kernel and diff them both. Many of the changes you'll see were changed after much testing, others are clearly options that are exclusive to the patches used in the zen-kernel sources.
There are many more differences between the two kernels, with some small effort you should be able to identify what they are. Why they are different though, that's a much different question - you can ask here, or most preferably, ask in #smxi at irc.oftc.net :)
|Back to top||
Great post damentz and good to know the differences between the lqx and slh kernels. I did some testing and did notice that the lqx kernels did help make my desktop more responsive and less "laggy" than the traditional slh kernels that sidux uses.
Does Ubuntu seem snappier with lqx kernels more than the stock Ubuntu ones? I am sure they are and that would indeed help improve the ubuntu experience.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours