Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

This poll is just to know the preferences of the users, doesn't mean that should be a best one

The main purpose of this topic is to understand why some users prefer to use Kernel BFS and why others prefer the Kernel Power.

In which situation the Bfs performs better than the Power or viceversa? and for what purposes we should choose one instead of the other?

Which one is more stable?

pros and cons?

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

I would love to know too!

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

I've tested BFS and at the same OC settings than KP and it just kept crashing while KP has been way more stable, even with VDD 1 & 2 enabled + DSP OC'ing.

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

BFS lags on UI, despite supposedly prioritising userspace stuff (problem is somewhere in Maemo - it works really nice on Archlinux and kernel 3.0)

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

I've tested BFS and at the same OC settings than KP and it never crashed.

I think that people who wonder which is better should try both and report the results.

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

I appreciate the work that went into BFS kernel, it's the kind of stuff that makes n900 awesome.

But sadly like Hurrian I find UI laggy with that kernel, even o/cd to 950.

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

what do you appreciate in particular of bfs kernel?

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

i actually find that ui interactions with bfs kernel to be more snappier then power kernel, single app execution feels slightly faster and bfs chokes less when multi tasking... however it does create a strange flickering effect when using opera and theres inconsistant vibrations also my n900 is overclocked to 500mhz to 1100mhz and transition speed are set to zero.

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

im interested more in the power saving rather than overclocking, wich one is better for long battery duration (assuming to use smartreflex without overclocking)?

i heard that bfs is not compatible with batterypatch, why? maybe because bfs makes the same things that batterypatch do?

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

Batterypatch is poorly regarded as a kludge by more sophisticated users than me, so when it was noted that BFS isn't compatible, no real inquiry was made into fixing the problem because nobody cared.

BTW: it appears that the BFS development is being abandoned shortly unless someone new picks it up.

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

i want to install both and try in multiboot, is it possible? are the latest versions of kernel-power-settings and QCPUfreq compatible with both kp49 and bfs10?

Re: Kernel BFS VS Kernel Power
 

As I understand kernel-bfs never got off the ground. It pauses, stutters and behaves in a way completely against the ideology of bfs (tighter scheduling and less waits compared to the Completely Fair Scheduler when running on a low-spec computer). Additionally, it's being abandoned by its programmers now.

So yeah, a vote for kernel-power.