Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

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

  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

    Phoronix: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

    For some results that are more interesting than the recent RHEL / Oracle / CentOS / Scientific Linux comparison, here are some benchmarks pitting Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 against a development snapshot of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on three different systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17103

  • #2
    differences?

    does anyone have any insight into the performance differences? gcc versions, compiler settings, file systems, kernel differences, what do you think? I am intrigued.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      Phoronix: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

      For some results that are more interesting than the recent RHEL / Oracle / CentOS / Scientific Linux comparison, here are some benchmarks pitting Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 against a development snapshot of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on three different systems.

      http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17103
      Totally misread the headline, thought it said Redhat Linux 6.2, not that your article wasn't good but it would have been more interesting to see how well old-school stacked up.

      Comment


      • #4
        RHEL6 is mostly based on Fedora 13, which was released in early 2010. Now it's 2012, so you can figure it out quite easily

        RHEL is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mistvieh View Post
          RHEL6 is mostly based on Fedora 13, which was released in early 2010. Now it's 2012, so you can figure it out quite easily

          RHEL is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge.
          "LTS" is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge, too!

          I am looking for particular reasons, not vague product descriptions.

          Many of these benchmarks are equivalent and some go to RHEL so apparently newer is not always better.

          Again it is far more complex than you make it seem.

          RHEL 6.2 is very recent so your age argument is bogus, RedHat backports lots of stuff, esp. performance enhancements
          Last edited by frantaylor; 02-29-2012, 04:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
            "LTS" is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge, too!
            When did that ever happen? *scnr


            Point is: Red Hat does not bump Software Version throughout the support cycle because of certified software running on it. That means rhel includes software which was released in 2010 and earlier + some security fixes.

            For instance: kernel version is 2.6.32 and not 3.2 or whatever ubuntu will be using. Firefox is 3.6. GCC is 4.4. Even ubuntu lts bumps software versions throughout the release cycle.

            Comment


            • #7
              Wherever my last post went to...

              Red Hat does not bump software versions throughout the release cycle. There ist certified software for rhel, which relies on this.

              For instance: kernel is 2.6.32, gcc is at 4.4.6 and so on.

              Rad Hat backports security fixes, not features! 6.2 is not very "recent", it has the most recent security fixes! Kernel is still 2.6.32 and that wont change. They sometimes include some drivers from future kernels, but nothing more.
              So: codebase is from 2010.

              Comment


              • #8
                Post

                You should really not make any more of this comparisons between Red Hat and Ubuntu latest release. First, Red Hat tries to hold the API and ABI for developers and they have to run on something older. Second, you don't want to start a war between Red Hat and Ubuntu cause all the performance Ubuntu has is because of Red Hat developers work...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mistvieh View Post
                  Wherever my last post went to...

                  Red Hat does not bump software versions throughout the release cycle. There ist certified software for rhel, which relies on this.

                  For instance: kernel is 2.6.32, gcc is at 4.4.6 and so on.

                  Rad Hat backports security fixes, not features! 6.2 is not very "recent", it has the most recent security fixes! Kernel is still 2.6.32 and that wont change. They sometimes include some drivers from future kernels, but nothing more.
                  So: codebase is from 2010.
                  You should read the RHEL 6.1/6.2 release notes. You will see many 2.6.33 to 3.0 kernel features (and drivers) backported.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Apache performance difference

                    The Apache results sure stand out because of the performance difference (Ubuntu 12.04 running circles around RHEL 6.2). Is this due to different Apache versions, or different default configurations?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mistvieh View Post
                      RHEL6 is mostly based on Fedora 13, which was released in early 2010. Now it's 2012, so you can figure it out quite easily

                      RHEL is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat...ersion_history Observe release 6.2 (zoot) released in 2000, I'm well aware of RedHat releases, thank you for helping others learn.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You know the difference between Red Hat Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux?

                        Or what was the purpose of your comment?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          well, the slowest harddisk for the amd system and different amounts of ram.... pretty worthless the whole endeavor. Next time as much identical hardware as possible and the whole thing might start to look serious.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This has nothing to do with the article, but Red Hat's wallpaper looks so much better than that blob of purple they call wallpaper on Ubuntu.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mistvieh View Post
                              When did that ever happen? *scnr


                              Point is: Red Hat does not bump Software Version throughout the support cycle because of certified software running on it. That means rhel includes software which was released in 2010 and earlier + some security fixes.

                              For instance: kernel version is 2.6.32 and not 3.2 or whatever ubuntu will be using. Firefox is 3.6. GCC is 4.4. Even ubuntu lts bumps software versions throughout the release cycle.
                              Except that you're wrong.

                              Red Hat guarantees a stable ABI and development platform.

                              They can and do upgrade components. That's not a Linux 2.6.32 kernel, it has backports of important features, new drivers, and bug and security fixes from every kernel released up to the 3.1 series. They upgraded Mesa from 7.10 to 7.11. Sometimes they throw in a new release of Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin, or at their discretion, anything else that they deem sufficiently important that won't affect their ability to properly support the distribution.

                              Now that Firefox has a long term branch, I suspect that RHEL will give up shipping Firefox 3.6 at some point and hop onto Firefox 10 "ESR".

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X