If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Oh stop it already you guys. Ubuntu is his reference point, it's the most popular distribution and that is just fine. Occasionally there are cross-distro comparissions, which is good enough.
What does this benchmark try to show us? That x86_64 is a bit ahead of i386, and I bet that's the same across the line. Personally, I'm not bothered one bit by the use of Ubuntu.
Generally, more important would be (in graphics tests, not the case here anyway) is the various compositers. I notice that gnome-shell/unity3D do hit 3D performance quite a bit, so on tests involving 3D there should be the standard reference system used, and one where for example mate is running, e.g. uncomposited.
The only thing really missing in this benchmark, is x32, if that's what its called. e.g. x86_64 with 32bit memory pointers. The best of both worlds, was it not?
So hint for next time Michael, there's 3 options now for x86 testing, i386, x86_64 and x86_32. Though I'll admit, x86_32 is quite harder to test, since I don't think Ubuntu does that yet.
I agree, Ubuntu is just a choice. I don't see any fanboyism, he needs a distro to test with and he chooses Ubuntu. It would be great to see how Mate, Cinnamon, KDE, Gnome 3, Unity, XFCE, LXDE, etc all stack up for desktop speed in various benchmarks. Not an easy task but the results would be interesting.
I freely admit my reasons for remaining with 32-bit are minor. They mostly consist of 32-bit games and emulators that require additional steps to run on 64-bit Linux. The fact is, there is nothing about 64-bit that jumps out as a huge advantage to me in either leisure or serious categories. In fact, most everything I do with my computers, both leisure and serious, can be done just fine on one of my 486 machines. The fastest computer I have is a Pentium 4 (good old single core technology). There's only a couple of games I play on it that won't run great on older machines.
can we please discuss the failure of the apache benchmarch, which is a big deal for systems running apache ... like ... this page? or any page?
There's not any point. The setup of the Apache benchmark Phoronix does is explicitly against what Apache recommends. It's in a configuration that exactly 0 people actually use in the real world. And it seems to fluctuate rather randomly based on kernel version. All of which point to the test being completely useless.
Guessing - but it seems that 32-PAE is going to be much slower with 8 or more gigabytes of RAM, doing a large memory-demanding task(s).
Most times my PC is multi-tasking: bacFkground Internet watching, various timers and indicators, or background backups, etc ...
Other unusual notes on this test: was the operating system Ubuntu, or Xubuntu? Big difference, since disabling Ubuntu's Unity is complex.
Also unusual is the use of the latest stable kernel. This is not part of the default distributions. I update all my distros to the latest stable kernel ASAP too. But then my Dell XPS-16 notebook needs the kernel's SSD-friendly benefits, not available with normal distro kernels.
Pity some juniors here can't read. As already mentioned, it is really a beginner's test of 32 vs 64 distro. Unknown seemingly to the tester, is that 64-bit is useful with more than 4GB of RAM. 32-PAE was created AAIK, since 64bit op systems had not developed enough for early adopters, until just recently.
Some apps use as much memory & cores as much is free. Anyone knows if 32-PAE is slower, with us guessing?
Actually it was master to master copy entire ~/.steam folder to ~/Documents/.steam.
I only use slave as reserve backup.
Also this was both on Kernel 3.11-rc2 as well. I've always had slow transfers and system unreponsiveness on vanilla Ubuntu, which never happens on Xubuntu or Mint.
Out of curiosity, how were you transferring those files?
Nautilus ? (G)rsync ? Bash 'cp' command ?
I can easily see Nautilus causing problems, especially in Ubuntu.
In fact, a couple of bad experiences with Nautilus in Ubuntu was what caused me to brush up on rsync, again, and make using that standard practice for large file transfers, even between disks/partitions on just one computer...