Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of The Gentoo-based Sabayon

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    That's the power of having a personal build service. All of that is easily done automated.
    You are telling you can set USE flags in an automated way in openSUSE and as easy as Gentoo?


    Again these issues are easily dealt with a build service where optimized packages can be built for pretty much any arch. openSUSE's public build service for example is pretty much next day releases when dealing with items such as X11, kernel, alsa, gcc and the various other quick changing projects.
    So after 5 years, an OpenSUSE installation is gonna be as modern as Gentoo's one?


    That's the thing, I don't know where you see these huge differences. As far as the game tests in the above article goes again this can be done on any distro if you wish to compile from scratch or setup a build service to do so automatically. At work for example I run a build server there and separate packages are built for pentium 4, amd64, ia32e and ppc (distributed among various machines, some old workstations to newer machines that are just not used alot using icecream) . When a update comes out from the update service (or a upgrade version from watched projects) it goes out and retrieves the src rpm and builds updates for all of them utilizing the specific optimizations. Set and forget.
    That's a different thing.
    You said that "Bare minimum services running are just as easily done on other distro's". So if I install Ubuntu and disable the running services, I will see a speed equal to Gentoo minus the 3% gcc-flags gains?
    I have done it, but it still was much more than 3% slower.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by n0nsense View Post
      As a Gentoo user i can tell you that "Sheer Compilation Time" is a myth
      For example, it takes 56 seconds to install Firefox from source.
      To recompile the whole thing with over 1K packages is less then 7 hours (I don't measure it usually and the "emerge -j 5 -vuNDe world" executed once something severely broken or something like GCC updated)
      Again, the average package installation takes same time is precompiled binary.
      And i'm talking about Q9300 with 4GB RAM... It's not fastest computer in any way. But you do need a lot of RAM. The trick is to use RAM disk (autofs) for portage work folder. But, RAM is cheap
      Oh come on, 56 seconds for firefox is a joke. The main time goes into emerging the underlying xulrunner engine (which is 8 minutes on my core 2 duo e8400 @ 3.6 ghz - still fast enough). Not to mention gtk and such. How about gcc? evolution? Yes, it does not take too much time to compile, but it is not zero. Defintiely time consuming. And to tell you, the biggest problem is not compile time. It is the default settings and use flags and tinkering on and on with the config files. Things don't come polished out of the box - just raw and simple close to upstream. They by and large do in a 15-minute install of Ubuntu (and possibly openSuse and Fedora).

      Yet of course, I don't ever think of ever changing from Gentoo to anything else just because of compile times (and in fact, I have only become more patient). For one simple reason that I like complete control and Gentoo gives me that in a clean elegant way. And it is not just USE flags and package versions. Unfortunately though, mere benchmarks like this article completely miss that point. Optimization is a bonus of course, but from my experience, even debian i386 works almost as well (or even faster and lighter) than my cflags "-march=core2 -O2").

      Aside, Sabayon is a great distro and I appreciate the efforts of Fabio Erculani and co . I remember the days (early 2006) when RR64 was one of the first live dvd's to show case xgl and compiz. However, I find default package collection and the distro itself to be too multimedia and gaming oriented. Plus the themes, desktop effects and the catchy logos and the bootup music seem too flashy, gaudy. I would love something subtle and professional like Red Hat or SuSe. I can't say much about the package collection - but games like nexuiz and saurbraten on a default live dvd is outrageous for me. Doesn't seem to be meant for a development machine or workstation out of the box. May be I am a little biased, being more into academics, but that's my opinion.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Apopas View Post
        You are telling you can set USE flags in an automated way in openSUSE and as easy as Gentoo?
        Compared to having to read extensive documentation to setup a Gentoo system most definitely.

        So after 5 years, an OpenSUSE installation is gonna be as modern as Gentoo's one?
        In place upgrades are nothing new in many distros. In openSUSE's case building against factory will suffice. Up until a few months ago I had a system that was upgraded with each release since SuSE 9.1 (which is about 5 years ago)

        That's a different thing.
        You said that "Bare minimum services running are just as easily done on other distro's". So if I install Ubuntu and disable the running services, I will see a speed equal to Gentoo minus the 3% gcc-flags gains?
        I have done it, but it still was much more than 3% slower.

        Not sure about ubuntu but with openSUSE it is very possible which is why it is pleasure to use for JEOS systems.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          Those libraries are the same libraries that pretty much every encoding application out there uses.
          Yes, but that doesn't make them any better for comparing compiler options unless you _explicitly_ turn off any hand optimized assembly, like Multimedia Mike does for instance:
          http://multimedia.cx/eggs/last-perfo...wn-for-awhile/

          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          Also to note that over aggressive optimizations often result in slower binaries.
          Yes, otherwise they wouldn't be 'over aggressive' would they?

          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          My tests were to simply show that going from a base optimizations in x86-64 to "tweaker" flags certianly do not yield a 25% increase in speed and that one set of flags is not universal for best performance system wide.
          No, not universally. But I've had alot of great improvements on programs like raytracers, emulators, compression etc by tailoring my cflags.

          for instance, I recently downloaded sdlmame via pacman on my Arch machine. The standard makepkg.conf was something like '-O2 -mtune=athlon64'

          I benchmarked a number of games and then I compiled it again using tailored flags (I believe they were -O3 -march=k8-sse3 -fomit-frame-pointer -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math), now the greatest increase was a game that became 29% faster and the smallest increase was 11%. So depending on application there can definitely be great gains. Also I did another build where I also added profile-guided optimization and the greatest increase then was 35%.

          Comment


          • #50
            Well I've been running gentoo for probably 8 years now. My patience wears thin with some of the compilation, especially firefox & Qt. The last dual core I had was 2GB would run out of ram during qt compilation and would annoyingly lock the system. Considering I had access to a couple of gentoo dual quads which chewed through compilations, well the dual superbly sucks in comparison.

            gentoo has 2 problems.

            - init & configuration are grossly over engineered. arch does them much better.
            - use flags are a mess. They should be refactored down into classes, reducing the number by 10-50x. Good example: i just want all the multimedia codecs. I shouldn't have to go hunt down and pick every single one, nor have to keep on top of manually adding new codecs. The class should pick them up.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
              - init & configuration are grossly over engineered. arch does them much better.
              Yeah, and arch doesn't have OpenRC and thus inherently sucks.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by clavko View Post
                Well, there's something of a sort right... here.

                Naturally, I'd like to see Gentoo trash Ubuntu some more, but I'll have to settle for this.
                This benchmark is meaningless, because there are different kernel versions used. It doesn't proof Gentoo is faster. It will be better to see generic Gentoo installation vs optimized one.

                @Bnolsen

                - init & configuration are grossly over engineered. arch does them much better.
                This cannot be said about Arch network configuration. It's sometimes a real mess IMHO.
                Last edited by kraftman; 01-05-2010, 05:03 AM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  This benchmark is meaningless, because there are different kernel versions used. It doesn't proof Gentoo is faster. It will be better to see generic Gentoo installation vs optimized one.
                  .
                  There is no such thing as "generic" Gentoo.
                  It is always "your Gentoo"
                  Most close to "Generic Gentoo" is Live CD/DVD.
                  There is also Sabayon But in this case, you have to
                  • Install Sabayon
                  • Edit make.conf
                  • Rebuild the system

                  And yet, it isn't generic Gentoo.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    This benchmark is meaningless, because there are different kernel versions used. It doesn't proof Gentoo is faster. It will be better to see generic Gentoo installation vs optimized one.
                    I agree. That's why I'm trying to say. For benchmarking to have some sense
                    one should have as much parameters as it can under control. Gentoo has this
                    kind of advantage to be a perfect customizable benchmark environment.
                    Now, I know it's time consuming, that's why I don't expect Phoronix to
                    jump at it. However... mmm... it sure as hell would be nice

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      Compared to having to read extensive documentation to setup a Gentoo system most definitely.
                      Gentoo needs no setup for this. You just write in /etc/make.conf
                      +qt -gtk -oss -semantic-desktop etc
                      The absolute optimization in the simplest way.
                      It's impossible to do this in OpenSUSE without get mad? Ok in every distro you can do whatever you want, you can even get Ubuntu and transform it to OpenSUSE. Linux is Linux, but the basic matter is to be practical and this is not.


                      In place upgrades are nothing new in many distros. In openSUSE's case building against factory will suffice. Up until a few months ago I had a system that was upgraded with each release since SuSE 9.1 (which is about 5 years ago)
                      Oh you mean upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2 etc... I ment to keep 9.1 modern for 5 years, but nevertheless even like that I've yet to see a distro but Gentoo which is reliable about version upgrades. Sometimes it works but usually you have so many problems that you find yourself wondering why you upgraded instead of making a clear installation which would be faster and less problematic. I know this from experience, SuSE was my favourite distro till 2004, before I switched to Gentoo and even now many times I suffer when I decide to upgrade instead of install an Ubuntu system I've installed to a friend.


                      Not sure about ubuntu but with openSUSE it is very possible which is why it is pleasure to use for JEOS systems.
                      The matter is what was the reason for that slowness and how could we be sure that only Ubuntu suffers from this? Besides, as far as we've seen in the comparison in this specific site, Ubuntu is from the fastest conventional distros.
                      Last edited by Apopas; 01-05-2010, 08:19 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                        I benchmarked a number of games and then I compiled it again using tailored flags (I believe they were -O3 -march=k8-sse3 -fomit-frame-pointer -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math)
                        I think -fomit-frame-pointer is enabled by default in X86_64, so is not needed to ad it to gcc flags.


                        Originally posted by kraftman
                        This benchmark is meaningless, because there are different kernel versions used. It doesn't proof Gentoo is faster. It will be better to see generic Gentoo installation vs optimized one.
                        But one of Gentoo's advantages is to always be modern. If we test same kernel versions etc between Gentoo and Ubuntu or whatever, it means that we kept our Gentoo old, which wouldn't be the case in reality
                        Last edited by Apopas; 01-05-2010, 08:25 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                          I think -fomit-frame-pointer is enabled by default in X86_64, so is not needed to ad it to gcc flags.
                          Yes you're right, I just add it out of old habit

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I would have liked to have seen 64-bit (K)Ubuntu thrown in for comparison. I'm assuming the example Ubuntu was the regular i386.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Update ebuild for gentoo

                              I wrote update ebuild of phoronix test suite for Gentoo

                              http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299121

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Michael forgot to mention what version of Kubuntu used, but I assume he used the 64 bit one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X