Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva Benchmarks

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

  • OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva Benchmarks

    Phoronix: OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva Benchmarks

    With it being a while since we last compared many Linux distributions when it comes to their measurable desktop performance, we decided to run a new round of tests atop four of the most popular Linux distributions: OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, and Mandriva. To see where these Linux distributions are at, we used their latest development releases and then performed all package updates as of 2009-07-15. Following that, we ran an arsenal of tests using the Phoronix Test Suite. Here are the results.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14045

  • #2
    commmon Xorg... get 7.5 out in time for openSUSE 11.2! Oh and fix XkbSetDetectableAutoRepeat while you're at it.

    Aside from that, having tried out openSUSE Factory, I mostly like where it's at (a few bugs to shake out still).

    What's up with Fedora? I hope they can blame that on debug builds or something. Oh and Ubuntu can suck it and I'm sure Mandriva is cheating somehow on a few tests. (Calm down I'm just poking fun )

    Comment


    • #3
      Throw in archlinux next time .

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by hax0r View Post
        Throw in archlinux next time .
        I'm not sure Mickael would like to re-install ArchLinux everytime he does a test.

        Even for me, as an arch user, it is not really straight forward and fast to install it. It usually takes me 2h (I have a really good internet provider) to get something working nicely. Ubuntu would have taken 30 minutes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Gentoo?

          It would have been good to include Gentoo in this comparison. I am curious why it was omitted. A test from the ISC in 2006 showed it to outperform other operating systems and distros when it comes to DNS performance. And installing Gentoo can be done in less than 30 minutes, too.

          Comment


          • #6
            Mandriva so good

            Please explain the Dbench result.

            160MB/sec for Mandriva with an old WD1600JS-00M (7200RPM)?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by chithanh View Post
              It would have been good to include Gentoo in this comparison. I am curious why it was omitted. A test from the ISC in 2006 showed it to outperform other operating systems and distros when it comes to DNS performance. And installing Gentoo can be done in less than 30 minutes, too.
              I too would like to see Gentoo benchmarked. However for Gentoo to even remotely achieve its potential a proper install must be done which recompiles everything with the CFLAGS properly defined for the processor. This takes more than 30 minutes.

              I do know my Gentoo laptop is quite a bit quicker than desktops running Ubuntu with similar processors running 400MHz faster.

              Comment


              • #8
                Some distros run background tasks like indexing. Those slow down the system. I am sure Kanotix Excalibur would be also fast on your PC as KDE 3.5 is faster than 4 anyway.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you think SeLinux is the problem with Fedora why don't you turn it off? Turning off SeLinux is the first thing I do when I install Fedora, I suspect that's what most Fedora users do because SeLinux is useless outside of the enterprise and it causes som any problems.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bjrosen View Post
                    If you think SeLinux is the problem with Fedora why don't you turn it off? Turning off SeLinux is the first thing I do when I install Fedora, I suspect that's what most Fedora users do because SeLinux is useless outside of the enterprise and it causes som any problems.
                    "All four distributions were left with their stock settings to represent an "out of the box" experience across all of them."
                    Michael Larabel
                    http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      fedora rawhide

                      Fedora Rawhide clearly has all the debugging options on.

                      On my Fedora 11 system, memory usage more than doubles if I use the rawhide kernel.

                      IMHO it makes for a pointless benchmark.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mmmbop View Post
                        Fedora Rawhide clearly has all the debugging options on.

                        On my Fedora 11 system, memory usage more than doubles if I use the rawhide kernel.

                        IMHO it makes for a pointless benchmark.

                        Bingo, *_DEBUG=y is used everywhere in the rawhide kernel.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The why is just as important as the what

                          Originally posted by Michael View Post
                          "All four distributions were left with their stock settings to represent an "out of the box" experience across all of them."
                          The whole point of using Linux vs that other OS is that it's infinitely tweakable. It would be really helpful to both Linux users and to Linux distro developers to know the reason for the performance differences that you find so that they can make the appropriate adjustments.

                          The distros that you tested were running the same revision components so you would have expected approximately the same performance. When you find a major discrepancy it's worth investigating. You had a couple of places where Fedora was underperforming by a huge amount. If it's something as simple as SeLinux (which can be disabled trivially, there is a menu item on the Administration menu, just flip it off and reboot) all Fedora users would want to know. Also this might convince RedHat to stop enabling it by default.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The problem is so clearly and obviously that rawhide has all the debug options on that it really must be repeated.

                            Rawhide is not a 'stock' Fedora at all. It is only useful for answering the questions: "Does this new code work?" and "The new code didn't work. What went wrong?"

                            It is not an indicator of future Fedora performance. It does not tell you how fast Fedora is. Its speed does not matter. Its speed is meaningless. How many ways can I say the same thing?

                            Even benchmarks of rawhide vs rawhide aren't useful. All that matters performance-wise is the optimized code that comes out when you tell the compiler to optimize things. Benchmark that.

                            It's like seeing how fast an athlete can run a marathon and also require that they go grocery shopping at every store along the way. They're not going to set any records that day.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MPF View Post
                              Even for me, as an (Arch Linux) user, it is not really straight forward and fast to install it.
                              http://chakra-project.org/about-faq.html

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X