Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

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

  • Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

    Fedora 11 was released earlier this week so we have set out to see how its desktop performance compares to that of Ubuntu 9.04, which was released back in April. Using the Phoronix Test Suite we compared these two leading Linux distributions in tasks like code compilation, Apache web server performance, audio/video encoding, multi-processing, ray-tracing, computational biology, various disk tasks, graphics manipulation, encryption, chess AI, image conversion, database, and other tests.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13950

  • #2
    It's obvious why Fedora might be faster (newer kernel, and ext4)
    But seeing as Fedora uses mostly newer versions of all the software (vs Ubuntu) does that mean that the places where Fedora loses are regressions ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SyXbiT View Post
      It's obvious why Fedora might be faster (newer kernel, and ext4)
      But seeing for Fedora uses mostly newer versions of all the software (vs Ubuntu) does that mean that the places where Fedora loses are regressions ?
      Fedora has SELinux enabled for default and it has sometimes big impact on performance:

      http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/3/350

      Ubuntu however, uses AppArmour, but I don't know if this slow its down.
      Last edited by kraftman; 06-11-2009, 12:09 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Better slow than crashing every 2 minutes I says.

        Comment


        • #5
          compilation benchmarks

          It is a bad idea to have compilation benchmarks with different versions of a compiler. Because the speed of different compilers is an added variable to determining the speed of the OS. In fact, the difference of speed between different compilers might be the only reason for a speed difference between the OSes.

          Also, as a developer, the speed of compilation is one of the last factors for consideration when choosing a compiler. I'd be primarily concerned with the speed of generated executable and supported languages, standards, and libraries.

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes, also compile benchmarks are really stupid to compare on other systems, because depending how many depends are installed on a system the compile time may be longer or slower. PTS sometimes shows the fastest results when it did not fully complete

            Comment


            • #7
              I should also say that I enjoy this site very much. And that is important to keep a tab on performance for the community. And one more thing, it isn't hard for me to skip looking at the compiler speed benchmarks when viewing the article.

              It is a bad idea for me to offer constructive criticism, without saying I like everything else!

              Originally posted by nathanvaneps View Post
              It is a bad idea to have compilation benchmarks with different versions of a compiler. Because the speed of different compilers is an added variable to determining the speed of the OS. In fact, the difference of speed between different compilers might be the only reason for a speed difference between the OSes.

              Also, as a developer, the speed of compilation is one of the last factors for consideration when choosing a compiler. I'd be primarily concerned with the speed of generated executable and supported languages, standards, and libraries.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think "stupid" is a bit of harsh. I agree with the objections, but I think compilation of a rather large project has historically been used as an overall system benchmark because it exercises CPU, memory and disk read/writes. So, besides the caveats you all provided, it's still a nice benchmark if taken with a grain of salt

                Michael: are you planning a 64 bit comparison? It would be nice to add it to the mix. Also, would it be possible to run Ubuntu on ext4 too see how much of the disk performance is coming from other factors? (different kernel, different compiler, libraries perhaps?)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Compile tests are not by definition bad benchmarks. As long as you use the SAME reference system and only change cpu/board it is valid to compare. But testing different distributions for compile speed leads to errors.
                  Last edited by Kano; 06-11-2009, 01:55 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    64 bit?

                    (sorry, I resubmitted the same post by mistake, deleting it)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My big beef here is that you use a *fast* system for your tests. Now how about running each OS on a netbook, where the slower CPU, more limited memory, slower disk would all hightlight the differences better.

                      I've also wondered about how many times each test is run, and whether you collect meaningful statistics. I'd love to see the mean, median and std deviation for each test. I think in alot of cases, we'd see that the systems really are just tied, or have just a small improvement.

                      It would also be nice to see how reproduceable each sub-test really is, which would tell us alot about how useful each test really is.

                      Another tweak to show would be to run each test multiple times, but to drop and not drop the vm caches between tests, to see how well the VM and it's caching helps.

                      I do like these benchmarks, they're certainly improving over time, but they could be better. More data please!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by l8gravely View Post
                        I've also wondered about how many times each test is run, and whether you collect meaningful statistics...It would also be nice to see how reproduceable each sub-test really is, which would tell us alot about how useful each test really is.
                        All of that data is easily available and clear through the Phoronix Test Suite.
                        Michael Larabel
                        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I wonder why phoronix benchmarks always focus on the tiobench latency, and never shows the tiobench troughtput...tiobench outputs many data, and many of them are more interesting than latency.
                          Last edited by diegocg; 06-11-2009, 02:42 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                            Michael: are you planning a 64 bit comparison? It would be nice to add it to the mix. Also, would it be possible to run Ubuntu on ext4 too see how much of the disk performance is coming from other factors? (different kernel, different compiler, libraries perhaps?)
                            As the article says in the ifrst page: "The x86_64 builds of both Fedora 11 and Ubuntu 9.04 were used."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SyXbiT View Post
                              It's obvious why Fedora might be faster (newer kernel, and ext4)
                              Both use 2.6.29 kernel.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X