I have read this question: Getting the alternative to the 200-Line Linux Kernel patch to work

And I am trying it on my desktop(s).

Is this a good idea for a server? Would it help in any way?

Edit: I manage several servers:

  • Web servers, running Apache/Cherokee + PHP-Fcgi + MySQL
  • Django servers, running Cherokee + Python + MySQL
  • Squid proxy, running Squid 2.7
  • Zabbix server, running Zabbix 1.8 full stack
  • OpenSuse 11.2, running iFolder 3.8 server (though obviously this one isn't the one I expect to get answers for in here... :))
  • "Is this a good idea for a server?" ... that depends on what the server is being used for :) – Nathan Osman Nov 19 '10 at 2:28
  • Good point, I'll clarify with a couple of examples of servers I manage. – UrkoM Nov 19 '10 at 2:34

Given that it's far more likely that your server is out performing most standard desktops these days slowing down the system won't at all help responsiveness. Likely - if at all - you are experiencing performance issue it's main bottleneck is Disk IO. Since this patches doesn't improve read/write from disks you wouldn't gain any change in performance. Definitely not worth the trouble of patching X amount of kernels on your servers.

  • Well, that's why I'm referring to the "alternative" described in the question that I mention... Patching and recompiling kernels on production servers? No, thanks :) – UrkoM Nov 19 '10 at 5:13
  • That aside - my answer still remains: nope :) – Marco Ceppi Nov 19 '10 at 5:14
  • The consensus seems to be "No", so let's just choose one answer :) – UrkoM Nov 19 '10 at 6:32

I'd recommend that you do not apply it to a Ubuntu server. The change improves scheduling more or less specific to desktop usage. It won't improve server response. That's the core of the criticism made by that RedHat guy, whose name I won't bother mentioning.


There is nothing magic about this patch, it just makes your system a bit slower but also more responsive for interactive use.

So I doubt it's very useful for your servers (except in some emergency circumstances maybe).

  • where is the 'interactive' part from? If he's running stuff from different ttys he could still benefit. – turbo Nov 19 '10 at 3:42

The "wonder patch" will provide better results in a desktop scenario, where you want something like 'make -j64' running in background without interfering with the other ("interactive") tasks. In your case, I assume you would want the scheduler to treat all your server processes equally... I'll have to agree with Marco and say that it is definitely not worth the trouble right now.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.