Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Linux Distribution Should Be Benchmarked The Most?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    I would propose openSUSE because you don't have the debug "problems" there and it's relatively easy to use a certain packagestate as a startpoint.

    Comment


    • #12
      Distros to be benchmarked

      Hi!

      Comparisons IMHO should include:
      1. Ubuntu 12.04.x - because that's the stable one, the people will use for business purpose, etc.
      2. Ubuntu lastest - coz that's what other bunch of people use
      3. ArchLinux - coz that's bleeding edge
      4. Debian - the mother of bubuntus
      5. Fedora - kinda bleeding edge, but quite popular

      I don't think list should be larger, but one thing that could actually matter is using other type of kernels, like the one with BFQ disk scheduler, TuxOnIce, maybe BFS. So it's -pf kernel or -lqx.
      In the end the there will be quite more work if You do include those, but that's what I'm interested in, just ubuntu and only the latest one, well not for me.

      regards
      Kirurgs

      Comment


      • #13
        No distro, just software

        The question is wrong.
        I think you should benchmark vanilla software in their latest stable release.
        And no, i'm not talking about archlinux (which i use).
        If you benchmark haswell, then you should benchmark software compiled for it, with appropriate cflags.

        It is useless to came out with benchmarks like 64bit vs 32bit when 64bit builds are optimized for the whole cpu instruction set, while the 32bit one aren't. (i mean... it is unfair, probably features like sse3 and sse4 are left out, while supported, on 32bit builds, just because precompiled binaries).

        Comment


        • #14
          Please include Gentoo, I'd like to see what real benefits you gain from compiling all of your own software.

          I don't use it, but it's really the only distro that has a huge difference between the conventional ones.
          Last edited by peppercats; 07-26-2013, 02:55 AM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Fedora Please

            Comment


            • #16
              You guys and your distro wars did it...
              i guess this where we say good bye Phoronix
              since i do not care about any other distro phoronix will not be news site for me anymore i guess wich makes me VERY sad becuase i used to check in at least 5 times a day here to see the news :C

              For the trolls: Be carefull what u wish for, if ubuntu would to fall it wont fall alone...
              people dont like change and they would probably be like me and just give up on linux and go back to windows.
              Go head and hate me for saying the truth that you ignore because u are in love with other distro.

              Thank you for the years of fun Phoronix, will miss you.

              Comment


              • #17
                I'd like to see more tests of LSB compliant distros, like openSUSE and Fedora. OpenSUSE provides newer binary kernel packages in OBS repo.

                Comment


                • #18
                  @MrTheSoulz
                  This isn't a distro-war, these are just answers to a question Michael has asked. Just to get some opinions from his readers. It's not a final decision...

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    I would like to see Debian stable in the mix as a base point to compare newer distros against.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by kokoko3k View Post
                      The question is wrong.
                      I think you should benchmark vanilla software in their latest stable release.
                      And no, i'm not talking about archlinux (which i use).
                      If you benchmark haswell, then you should benchmark software compiled for it, with appropriate cflags.

                      It is useless to came out with benchmarks like 64bit vs 32bit when 64bit builds are optimized for the whole cpu instruction set, while the 32bit one aren't. (i mean... it is unfair, probably features like sse3 and sse4 are left out, while supported, on 32bit builds, just because precompiled binaries).
                      The questions are different, not wrong. Just because it is not the question you are most interested in does not make it a "wrong" question.

                      The question isn't "what is the absolute fastest this software can be run". That might be an interesting question in some regards, but it is simply not the question Phoronix is interested in.

                      The question is "how fast will this run for typical users". Since typical users don't recompile all of their software for absolute optimization, doing so will not give results typical users will see.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X