Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6.2 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Performance

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

  • Mac OS X 10.6.2 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Performance

    Phoronix: Mac OS X 10.6.2 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Performance

    While we are just weeks away from delivering the most comprehensive Mac OS X vs. Windows 7 vs. Linux benchmarks, and Apple is on the heels of releasing the major Mac OS X 10.6.3 update, for those impatient ones today we have published an extensive set of tests comparing the performance of Mac OS X 10.6.2 against a development build of Ubuntu 10.04. This is our first time exploring how Canonical's Lucid Lynx can compete with Apple's Snow Leopard.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14723

  • #2
    So on identical hardware, you see identical performance on CPU tests, and slight to dramatic differences on stuff that relates to the kernel.

    Given the nature of the pgbench test, if it is a known problem on ext4, why is ext4 being used to run it? Are people running serious PostgreSQL databases stupid enough to stick with the default file-system for a Linux distro when it is demonstrably inferior? In Mac OSX you have little choice about the file-system, in Linux, it's pretty easy to switch file-systems for critical applications.

    So yeah, way to go, include a server benchmark in a desktop comparison, and don't worry about the fact that the system is almost deliberately skewed against Ubuntu on that benchmark.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
      So on identical hardware, you see identical performance on CPU tests, and slight to dramatic differences on stuff that relates to the kernel.

      Given the nature of the pgbench test, if it is a known problem on ext4, why is ext4 being used to run it? Are people running serious PostgreSQL databases stupid enough to stick with the default file-system for a Linux distro when it is demonstrably inferior? In Mac OSX you have little choice about the file-system, in Linux, it's pretty easy to switch file-systems for critical applications.

      So yeah, way to go, include a server benchmark in a desktop comparison, and don't worry about the fact that the system is almost deliberately skewed against Ubuntu on that benchmark.
      a linux newcomer is probably going to stick with the defaults.

      as in; people that use mac generally don't customize it because, well, it's not very customizable. and a lot of people that use ubuntu generally don't customize things like filesystems because, well, they're new to linux.

      it seems like micheal just likes to test out-of-box experiences. you could run the tests yourself the way you like them, maybe even start a site to compete with phoronix. for more advanced users.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by portets43 View Post
        a linux newcomer is probably going to stick with the defaults.

        as in; people that use mac generally don't customize it because, well, it's not very customizable. and a lot of people that use ubuntu generally don't customize things like filesystems because, well, they're new to linux.

        it seems like micheal just likes to test out-of-box experiences. you could run the tests yourself the way you like them, maybe even start a site to compete with phoronix. for more advanced users.
        What RobbieAB is saying is that a normal Ubuntu user doesn't care about Postgre performance, even if they're running their own personal website. If I'm the IT for a mega corporation's website that gets hundreds of thousands of views per day, I would have the knowledge to not use Ext4 and Ubuntu for my Postgre DB.

        But I also wouldn't be using a Mac Mini like in the test.

        Comment


        • #5
          ah, okay.

          but still, what i said applies to a lot of previous posts in threads. there's just way too much complaining here sometimes.

          Comment


          • #6
            pvtcupcakes pretty much has my point. Why include a benchmark that is meaningless and only really has the effect of making one platform look bad? With the exception on the pgbench, Ubuntu is actually giving Snow Leopard a decent run, given that Snow Leopard should be optimised far better for the hardware.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
              So on identical hardware, you see identical performance on CPU tests, and slight to dramatic differences on stuff that relates to the kernel.
              Given the nature of the pgbench test, if it is a known problem on ext4, why is ext4 being used to run it? Are people running serious PostgreSQL databases stupid enough to stick with the default file-system for a Linux distro when it is demonstrably inferior? In Mac OSX you have little choice about the file-system, in Linux, it's pretty easy to switch file-systems for critical applications.

              So yeah, way to go, include a server benchmark in a desktop comparison, and don't worry about the fact that the system is almost deliberately skewed against Ubuntu on that benchmark.[/QUOTE]

              It should be even better with debugging disabled on Ubuntu and with different ext4 mount options, but the defaults are benchmarked and this seems to be sane.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have no problems with the rest of the tests. It strikes me as "Oh, Ubuntu is competitive with Snow Leopard for performance".

                What I objecting to was the inclusion of a decidely non-desktop benchmark that makes Ubuntu look really bad in stock configuration when anyone who actually cares about the performance on that benchmark won't be running it on stock Ubuntu. What does including that server benchmark in a desktop comparison actually achieve?

                Comment


                • #9
                  It was a good idea to include that benchmark in the test. When something gets negative publicity, chances of it getting fixed increase.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    It was a good idea to include that benchmark in the test. When something gets negative publicity, chances of it getting fixed increase.
                    But there's probably nothing to fix, it's probably just matter of configuration.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "This is our first time exploring how Canonical's Lucid Lynx can compete with Apple's Snow Leopard."

                      In terms of what?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by korpenkraxar View Post
                        "This is our first time exploring how Canonical's Lucid Lynx can compete with Apple's Snow Leopard."

                        In terms of what?
                        In terms of the benchmarks that were used? Duh?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                          In terms of the benchmarks that were used? Duh?
                          Yeah, I can see how Canonical really has Apple shaking of fear over that MAFFT benchmark. Protein and DNA sequence alignment performance has always been a key deal-breaker in the desktop computer business :-)

                          What I meant is, what user scenarios were emulated here to illustrate what the two competing platforms bring to the table and tell potential users/customers which one to opt for depending on their own particular priorities?

                          As often the case with these benchmarks, the average performance delta between the compared entities tends to be something like 10% or less. The weird metric (IMHO) and small differences aside, is the person for whom such differences are relevant even a likely consumer of either product?

                          Michael and Phoronix insists on sticking to the defaults for things like Ext4/PostgreSQL to emulate out-of-the-box experiences for so-called average users (we assume). This may apply well to some cases, and worse to others. From a Desktop user's perspective, wouldn't a comparison pitching the performance of a typical Free program pipeline, say Ubuntu/Gimp against a Proprietary one, such as Mac/Photoshop be more relevant to illustrate their competitive properties? Or how about things like battery life, Wifi reception, speed of suspend/resume cycles, screen management, audio quality and so on? Surely, Phoronix has the skills necessary to benchmark these too.

                          I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, and maybe it is just me being ignorant here, but what am I supposed to be able to extract from this mix of benchmarks? The presentation itself provides no information as to what kind of aspects of the OS that is actually tested and limiting for each test (CPU, memory, IO etc), we are assumed to know that. Some of tests I rant about above will likely be included in the upcoming three-way benchmark, I just hope that they put some more effort into putting things into context in the presentation. This one should really read:

                          "This is our first time exploring how Canonical's Lucid Lynx can benchmark against Apple's Snow Leopard."

                          Anyways, MAFFT runs great on Opterons :-)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Is it weird that I came to the opposite conclusion? I've seen previous benchmarks of Mac OSX vs Ubuntu on here and Mac OSX always won by a clear margin.

                            For the first time, the lines are blurred and Ubuntu actually won in most of the benchmarks and certainly the more important ones. The only ones it lost was a test that is known to fail on Ext4 and a ray tracing test (which I do consider important). Almost everything else was a tie or a win in favour of Ubuntu.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No, it's not weird. In fact, that is what your result should be based on the benchmarks run. The only reason for including the pgbench I can think of is to try and make Ubuntu look bad, as it is totally different to the rest being a server benchmark.

                              Also, Ubuntu getting close to Snow Leopard is not a huge surprise to me. Snow Leopard involved a major change in the compiler targets and as a result is having some serious teething problems in my experience, so of which are pretty bizarre. (Problems saving wireless configs which worked near perfectly in Leopard? I mean, WTF?)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X