Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Big Operating System Benchmark Comparison

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

  • #31
    I'd like to see Fedora, RHEL/CentOS and Sabayon/Gentoo [Default and totally optimized!] included in the comparison.

    I agree with previous posters that boot times are a must for this test. I also think each platform should concentrate on a single filesystem if possible (ext4 on Linux until BtrFS is better optimized).

    It might be wise to split the test into multiple groups, one for each platform (Linux and BSD) and then putting the winners (if there is a clear winner, or a selection of winners) against OpenSolaris and OS X.

    Comment


    • #32
      I think it would be good to include different branches of Linux and Sabayon is an interesting branch of Gentoo. Easy to install, rolling updates and includes most everything out of the box. I haven't tried it recently, but they have a new update due the end of the month (5.0). Would be a good way to get the Gentoo branch included.

      Comment


      • #33
        Archlinux

        Archlinux - it is a performance beast and always one of if not the most up to date linux distro with it's rolling release architecture. Not to mention that AUR already has phoronix text suite.

        Comment


        • #34
          i really don't think having half a billion linux distro's is a good idea, for one, it will take micheal forever for two it will just get in the way.

          personally i think max 1 current community distro, and one stable/enterprise distro. as enterprise distro's tend to be a bit behind the curve, i think that would make for an interesting look at how things have progressed.

          current community would most likely be ubuntu as thats whats usually benchmarked... though fedora/arch/mandriva/etc would work fine. personally i'd like to see arch as it represents very up to date developments.

          Comment


          • #35
            Gentoo?
            I know that you have to configure gentoo and etc. But from LiveCD i Think configuring is less dificult (and time consuming)


            And Mandriva, DreamLinux and stock Debian

            Cheers!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Michael View Post
              Waiting on someone to send me some new Apple hardware then...
              You could also use a Linux distro with a non broken Intel driver,

              Comment


              • #37
                Just make sure you also give 64-bit LInux a chance, otherwise M@c0$ will win again...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by supert0nes View Post
                  Archlinux - it is a performance beast and always one of if not the most up to date linux distro with it's rolling release architecture. Not to mention that AUR already has phoronix text suite.
                  Oh, yeah. Arch please :> It will be 'slower' in some SQL tests, but just because of some change:

                  http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...92&postcount=3

                  Just make sure you also give 64-bit LInux a chance
                  Naturally 64-bit should be tested. Isn't OS X using 64-bit capabilities like someone mentioned in another thread?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Naturally 64-bit should be tested. Isn't OS X using 64-bit capabilities like someone mentioned in another thread?
                    Yup, also the new OSX will be pure 64 bit as they say.
                    Also, if only Ubuntu is used, then the comparison will be between a new product (OSX) and a distro that will be 4 months old. Thus, to stay in the real world, two distros should be used.
                    i) Ubuntu 9.04 or preferably Fedora 11 which is newer both 64 bit (only if there is time and 32 bit as well)
                    ii) Arch or if possible Sabayon or gentoo so to be able to test our modern features and software in this modern hardware.

                    (Truth be told I don't really think it will be a big trouble to have a test of Arch as well along with Ubuntu. It worths the time if we want the benchmarks to be fair).
                    Last edited by Apopas; 08-15-2009, 06:06 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
                      actually intel knows that they can save on manufacturing costs and use less electricity by keeping the atom 32bit - which for its intended platform is very important.

                      as for the sse2 thing - thats a horrible arguement as the attom supports sse2/3/4.

                      for some things portability and battery life are more important the extreme processing power - and sometimes people only need a simple internet or multimedia machine and don't want to spend alot. for both of those, the atom is a great product.
                      no thats a good argument becourse:
                      debian-i386=486!!!!
                      debian-amd64=64bit+sse2

                      you are a laier if you say you can use sse3 on the atom with an defauld desktop linux distri!

                      "save on manufacturing costs"

                      only becourse they must pay lizence per cpu to amd for the 64bit part!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                        (Truth be told I don't really think it will be a big trouble to have a test of Arch as well along with Ubuntu. It worths the time if we want the benchmarks to be fair).
                        Just because you use arch doesnt make it an ideal testing platform. I use linux mint but you dont see me asking for that to be tested, i can already assure you its bloated. If the man had the time i would say go for it but he and hopefully others here have lives to attend .

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          I guess that would mean ~70% of linux users are retarded then as that's still about the percentage of linux users using 32-bit. One of the strengths of linux is NOT having to buy new hardware to keep current with the OS. Linux is just as much as running on legacy systems as it is running on current hardware.
                          yes but you miss an point
                          '
                          Benchmarking is only for new hartware becourse you canot "not" buy your old hartware becourse of bad benchmark results!

                          you only can handel your buy in hartware befor you buy it and read benchmarkes as a shopping guid!

                          32bit linux is vor old hartware only!

                          so to make a big benchmark on 32 bit is useless!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Michael View Post
                            Waiting on someone to send me some new Apple hardware then...
                            you also can use hackintosh ... .

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by kiwi_kid_aka_bod View Post
                              Well, benchmark shoot-outs alone are (no offence to your previous hard work) getting a little dull and repetitive. Of more interest is probably the question: How well do the differing OS's take advantage of the hardware available?

                              The key questions for me would be:
                              1. How does the jump in performance of OS A on a hard drive vs. an SSD compare to the jump for OS's B, C, D, etc. for the same?
                                Recommended settings from the provider (i.e. noatime) would be applied
                                This would make sense in the disk tests.
                              2. How does the jump in performance of OS A on 32 vs. 64 bit and single vs. dual vs. quad core compare to the jump for OS's B, C, D, etc. for the same?
                                Noting disadvantages such as no flash, broken/unavailable gfx drivers, etc.
                                This would make sense in CPU and multi-threading heavy tests.
                              3. How well does OS A work with Intel/AMD/NVidia compared to OS's B, C, D, etc where appropriate?
                                A server board with Intel could be used, then add-in AMD/NVidia cards.
                                Possibly open-source and proprietary drivers could be assesed.
                                This would make sense in graphics heavy tests.

                              As to actual OS's pick one from each:
                              1. Linux Desktop/User friendly (probably Ubuntu Desktop)
                              2. Linux Server/Hardcore (Ubuntu Server, RHES, Arch, i.e. lean)
                              3. Mac OS X
                              4. Solaris or OpenSolaris (any significant difference?)
                              5. Net/Free/PC-BSD (perhaps more than one of them)
                              6. <dream-mode>Windows 7</dream-mode>
                              7. Possible others?...
                              I would suggest that only the latest available supported releases are eligible. No alphas, betas or rc's.

                              In the end this all might be a touch futile. Even if there were better figures in one of the others, personally I'd be unlikely to switch OS based on benchmarks. As an end-user it's more about the utility, comfort and previous experience of an OS than about a bit of performance here and there.

                              As a developer (or in my case, a geek) it is interesting to highlight and spot patterns of deficiencies in comparison to peers.
                              32bit vs 64bit is pointless the last phoronix test macox vs linux shows linux lost all benchmarks on 32bit becourse sse3 used by macos and i386 linux do not use sse1

                              only 64bit linux has a chance becourse of sse2 against the sse3 in macOS!!!! !

                              benchmark on an harddrive is Poinitless only a fast SSD will be better!

                              there is no need to test an lame duck like mechanikharddrives!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                                Sources missing.
                                the last phoronix test macos vs ubuntu,.. 32bit ubuntu lose nerly every test lose nerly ALL test.

                                but the 64bit ubuntu wins most of the tests!

                                and there only 1-2 test that say 32 bit is faster over 13 test say 64bit is faster!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X