Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SphinUX OS Claims To Be ~150% Faster Than GNU/Linux

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    (...)Said the one who was blaming java and qt in past. It seems you don't follow your own rules.
    Where? I would love specifics

    Let me look for some quotes I wrote about Java:
    Here :
    Source: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...ht=#post325362

    At last, you seem to know to insult everyone, and I think that Java fans out-there would say that are many instances when Java is faster than C: http://scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html
    Or this quote:
    I know that NBody (in the your shown case) is not multi-core aware, but even the previous month at work, I had some native code and as it had to do a massive processing task (basically to crack passwords), moving into multi-core was done much easier with Java code and at the end, just using basically "Java -server" and by using all cores it was running basically 6-8 times faster. Of course 1 core C++ vs 4 HT (4 x 2) cores Java.
    Maybe I was bashing Qt !?:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...ht=#post314605
    I have no issues with Qt per-se, but the development cycle in C# is most of the times faster than the QMake cycle in Qt. If you can afford Resharper (or CodeRush) you will get static code analysis that warrants higher quality code.

    About Qt and issues I faced:
    - MSSQL uses a sub-par database driver (http://doc.qt.digia.com/stable/sql-driver.html)
    - also Qt is slower in calling signals than C# code and sometimes it has issues with thread safety: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1...nd-performance
    - if you use a Metacity Window Manager (at least in Qt 4.4 cycle) there were bugs in creating Windows. Qt was stested against KWM mostly (I had issues at my work regarding those issues)
    Maybe here?

    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...ht=#post314596
    What Qt offers and Mono doesn't?
    - if we talk about the runtime part, I can say that Mono offers more:
    + GC: simply means that you write simpler algorithms and you don't look for reference counted cycles
    + dynamic runtime with inline caching ( http://stackoverflow.com/a/7478557 ),
    + very easy to embed plugins (compare with the QtPlugin, or with dlopen/LoadLibrary mess),
    + a very easy way to do network remoting, Xml processing, class & fied annotations that can work with reflection to automate configuration in complex systems
    What Qt offers easily:
    + C++ integration with foreign codebases (that are old ones)
    + Two paradigms for controls: QWidget and Qml that are both working cross platform
    + arguably a bit better performance
    PyQt offers most of Mono (excluding the toolkit part) with a performance hit if you don't use PyPy and no static checking (meanining performance hit and bugs in typing).
    So, may you say the post where was I "blaming"? Even I did, for some factual items, certainly I never use a sub-par language (and I don't mean Java compared with C# ) like the following quote:

    You:
    Mono on Linux is desirable for m$ only. Linux will become the main platform when it gets games, so m$ wants to pollute it with mono. Ever heard of m$ patents FUD? Did you ever wondered where those 200+ patents violations lay? They lay in mono. Just say fu*k you Icaza, m$ and have a nice day.
    Read the answer:
    Originally posted by directhex View Post
    ...
    - did your butt hurt? It seem that when it was about getting factual, you dissipated like a smoke

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      There's no need for any citations. None of these tiny OSes is being used in serious environments where performance matters.
      One Tiny OS is Qnx, and some cars are using it: "The QNX CAR Application Platform is running in over 20 million vehicles as of mid-2011". Of course, it runs as BB10 too.

      The reason for quotations has to be understood fairly easily: many thing come with "feelings", and less about measure.

      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      However, it was someone that has claimed smaller systems are faster, so it's him that has to provide proofs.
      And as you may say: "I do care just about multi-core performance", of course there is a citation about the performance:
      http://onqpl.blogspot.com/2011/10/qn...enchmarks.html
      And the relevant quote (for me):
      The performance benchmarks, which are especially rigorous, gauge whether an OS has what it takes for applications that have zero tolerance for missed deadlines. These tests include thread-switch latency and interrupt latency.
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      When comes to BeOS or Haiku optimizations it was mentioned many times on Phoronix. Some other people would explain this better to you, but as far as I remember it's related to multi threaded GUI.
      Haiku/BeOS has a clearly described open architecture (read it here, is free: http://oreilly.com/openbook/beosprog/book/index.html ) When you dismiss others' views because you didn't bother to fact check, says something about your willingness to improve yourself. In my best understanding, BeOs has for every important system a server (similar with X11, or the print spooler, etc.) and applications are not blocking any of these servers (when in X11/Windows preVista you can), so when you draw something, and it is CPU intensive, this will not freeze your UI, and you can move still the windows, etc. This gives at least the feeling of being very responsive about BeOS (or Haiku).

      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      My point wasn't off topic, because I was talking about SpinUX not about BeOS or Haiku alone.
      So let's use a citation:
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      I didn't hear such bullshit since a long time. BeOS, Haiku, DOS are much slower than bigger operating systems. It's because of architecture not because of being small or not. Furthermore, Linux doesn't use 90% of its features on a common PC, so your point is invalid.
      Did anyone said anything before you about BeOS, Haiku or DOS? Mark45 simply stated about space/speed tradeoff.

      If you talk about BS, Haiku (nightly) as far as it is stated here (and I trust as being a higher chance of being true, compared with most of what you say), uses GCC 4.7 so the code on the same CPU that does a lot of computations would run (close to) identical on Linux and Haiku. You said: "Haiku, ... (is) much slower than bigger operating systems". If you move the goalpost and state: "it is slower in database benchmarks" or anything of this sort (which was again, not so clear in your initial statement), and you will try to look for a specific benchmark, maybe you will find this link:
      https://www.haiku-os.org/blog/stippi...ves_benchmarks

      FreeBSD 8.0:
      real 11m53.918s
      user 17m11.611s
      sys 2m39.864s
      (713.9 seconds)

      Linux 2.6.31:
      real 13m32.431s
      user 17m10.099s
      sys 2m49.717s
      (812.4 seconds)

      OpenSolaris 2009.06:
      real 14m20.792s
      user 18m36.871s
      sys 5m39.549s
      (860.8 seconds)

      Haiku r35024:
      real 17m18.436s
      user 27m22.108s
      sys 5m0.447s
      (1038.4 seconds)
      It looks that at least around year of glory 2010, you should not use your beloved Linux box but FreeBSD, as Linux "is useless" (as someone told you, in your logic, the opposite to better is useless).

      For benchmarks, Haiku is using the outdated GCC 2.xx line, so the comparison may not be that fair.

      Enjoy doing acrobatics with the facts kraftman
      Last edited by ciplogic; 06-10-2013, 08:47 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
        One Tiny OS is Qnx, and some cars are using it: "The QNX CAR Application Platform is running in over 20 million vehicles as of mid-2011". Of course, it runs as BB10 too.
        Qnx isn't a toy and I wasn't talking about Qnx. When I said small operating systems I meant toys like Haiku or BeOS. There are embedded Linux versions which are also very small, but they're not the toys as well. My original point was size doesn't matter, but design.

        And as you may say: "I do care just about multi-core performance", of course there is a citation about the performance:
        http://onqpl.blogspot.com/2011/10/qn...enchmarks.html
        It seems you're mixing multi-core performance with real time operating systems. You're simply amazing.

        Haiku/BeOS has a clearly described open architecture (read it here, is free: http://oreilly.com/openbook/beosprog/book/index.html ) When you dismiss others' views because you didn't bother to fact check, says something about your willingness to improve yourself. In my best understanding, BeOs has for every important system a server (similar with X11, or the print spooler, etc.) and applications are not blocking any of these servers (when in X11/Windows preVista you can), so when you draw something, and it is CPU intensive, this will not freeze your UI, and you can move still the windows, etc. This gives at least the feeling of being very responsive about BeOS (or Haiku).
        I've never said it's bad (but I'm not saying it's good, because there are reasons why bigger operating systems aren't using same thing).

        So let's use a citation:

        Did anyone said anything before you about BeOS, Haiku or DOS? Mark45 simply stated about space/speed tradeoff.
        Ok, I have to admit I was mistaken here, so I apologize.

        If you talk about BS, Haiku (nightly) as far as it is stated here (and I trust as being a higher chance of being true, compared with most of what you say), uses GCC 4.7 so the code on the same CPU that does a lot of computations would run (close to) identical on Linux and Haiku. You said: "Haiku, ... (is) much slower than bigger operating systems". If you move the goalpost and state: "it is slower in database benchmarks" or anything of this sort (which was again, not so clear in your initial statement), and you will try to look for a specific benchmark, maybe you will find this link:
        https://www.haiku-os.org/blog/stippi...ves_benchmarks


        It looks that at least around year of glory 2010, you should not use your beloved Linux box but FreeBSD, as Linux "is useless" (as someone told you, in your logic, the opposite to better is useless).

        For benchmarks, Haiku is using the outdated GCC 2.xx line, so the comparison may not be that fair.

        Enjoy doing acrobatics with the facts kraftman
        Yay! They've used one of the slowest Linux file systems and ufs2 in BSD which is comparable to Ext2 which doesn't provide nearly any protection. And.. Haiku is indeed the slowest out there! You're simply a genius. Furthermore, there were many more benchmarks showing Linux outperforms BSD in 2010. Just check out Phoronix:

        http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...buntu910&num=1

        So, according to my logic nobody should be using BSD. Keep in mind Ubuntu had debugging enabled, so it makes BSD to look even worse. Facts are against you Ciplogic. You were doing much better in the past. PS. I doubt if there's any impact on jam when comes to different GCC versions.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          Qnx isn't a toy and I wasn't talking about Qnx. When I said small operating systems I meant toys like Haiku or BeOS. There are embedded Linux versions which are also very small, but they're not the toys as well. My original point was size doesn't matter, but design.
          (...)
          It seems you're mixing multi-core performance with real time operating systems. You're simply amazing.
          I didn't. If you look, at least on low-spec hardware (the strongest CPUs out there), QNX has a showing (the license of the articles doesn't let me post numbers or such). It is sometimes even faster (than Linux). But you didn't discuss about "OSes that are toys" compared with "OSes that are not toys", but the "big OSes" compared with "small OSes", right?


          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          Yay! They've used one of the slowest Linux file systems and ufs2 in BSD which is comparable to Ext2 which doesn't provide nearly any protection. And.. Haiku is indeed the slowest out there! You're simply a genius. Furthermore, there were many more benchmarks showing Linux outperforms BSD in 2010. Just check out Phoronix:

          http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...buntu910&num=1

          So, according to my logic nobody should be using BSD. Keep in mind Ubuntu had debugging enabled, so it makes BSD to look even worse. Facts are against you Ciplogic. You were doing much better in the past.
          You said: "They've used one of the slowest Linux file systems and ufs2 in BSD which is comparable to Ext2 which doesn't provide nearly any protection. " Did you read the link/article, or just the numbers?

          The article stated explicitly that it uses the:
          For Linux I had initialized the partition with ReiserFS 3.6, since that is supposedly still the fastest file system for compiling Haiku. It is also the only Linux file system that offers xattr support well enough to be usable by the Haiku build process to store the many custom file attributes.
          So, in comparison to what someone is writing here, the benchmarks (at least for compiling Haiku with) were as good as they could be for Linux. If you read at a deeper level you could find that many slow parts were improved inside Haiku so it was faster (at least in this benchmark) like 5x that it was before. 2x slower than FreeBSD/ 1.8 x times slower than Linux!? Who cares? (you do, but out of this discussion)

          Did you try other more up-to-date benchmarks of FreeBSD? Which do not "use debug" for Ubuntu? Like this one: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._preview&num=2

          Yes, Linux still wins, but not by such of a big margin, isn't it?

          About your definition of better/useless (which you seem to adhere), when you find a benchmark where Linux loses, you think that is always the fault of the benchmark? Or you think that people must misconfigure Linux? When Windows wins in video drivers benchmarks (and in games) does it make Linux useless for games?


          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          PS. I doubt if there's any impact on jam when comes to different GCC versions.
          No, the impact is in the fact that BeOS (kernel) was already built with GCC 2.x compared with a GCC 4.x compiled Linux kernel. This means that more optimizations are applied in the first place to the entire Linux kernel. Many would not matter, but maybe some would.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
            I didn't. If you look, at least on low-spec hardware (the strongest CPUs out there), QNX has a showing (the license of the articles doesn't let me post numbers or such). It is sometimes even faster (than Linux). But you didn't discuss about "OSes that are toys" compared with "OSes that are not toys", but the "big OSes" compared with "small OSes", right?
            Great, but why you're still talking about QNX? It's a different level and I wouldn't put it next to toys like Haiku. Furthermore, it should be compared to RTLinux not generic kernel.

            You said: "They've used one of the slowest Linux file systems and ufs2 in BSD which is comparable to Ext2 which doesn't provide nearly any protection. " Did you read the link/article, or just the numbers?
            I have only looked at the numbers. I wouldn't ever suppose they've made a compile time benchmark and draw conclusions about locking. Those guys are simply clueless and they're just proving how incompetent they are. They've made a compile time benchmark which only means Haiku compiles faster on some OS configuration. They were thinking BSD folks made locking optimizations and that was the reason - in their opinion - why Haiku compiled faster out there. While it was just a file system which made a difference. It doesn't matter if ReiserFS was the fastest on Linux in this task, because it's still much different than UFS. I bet they didn't even try Ext2 which would make comparison more fair. It also seems they didn't provide what package versions were used which could also have some impact on compilation time.

            About your definition of better/useless (which you seem to adhere), when you find a benchmark where Linux loses, you think that is always the fault of the benchmark? Or you think that people must misconfigure Linux? When Windows wins in video drivers benchmarks (and in games) does it make Linux useless for games?
            When the benchmark is valid one I have nothing against it. For example Intel video driver is faster in Windows and that's ok. However, when some idiots are doing benchmarks and draw stupid conclusions it's something I cannot agree with.

            No, the impact is in the fact that BeOS (kernel) was already built with GCC 2.x compared with a GCC 4.x compiled Linux kernel. This means that more optimizations are applied in the first place to the entire Linux kernel. Many would not matter, but maybe some would.
            That's true, but when I was writing about this I thought it wasn't a compile time benchmark, but disk performance one. However, a different file system will still make a much bigger difference than compiler.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              Great, but why you're still talking about QNX? It's a different level and I wouldn't put it next to toys like Haiku. Furthermore, it should be compared to RTLinux not generic kernel.
              (...)
              When the benchmark is valid one I have nothing against it. For example Intel video driver is faster in Windows and that's ok. However, when some idiots are doing benchmarks and draw stupid conclusions it's something I cannot agree with.
              I agree with you, there are many true facts (like any toy OS cannot beat any "big" OS, by this I think you mean mature, well established and well supported, and full featured). Similarly there are people doing it better or worse, but it is very unlikely excluding for trivial "benchmarks" when some guys in garage beat a corporation which cares about performance.

              So what it remains to settle from your side, is to give quotations when I was "blaming" Qt or Java. I tried to support most of points of views with goods and bads. The "worst" things I found myself close, it was to benchmark multiple applications startup, when someone said something like that "Mono is a pig" in startup, and Qt is so good - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH-VrnIV-rs Other topic (again, I will let you to find it), I remember that there were applications written in C# which were more lightweight than their C++ equivalent (SharpDevelop vs Visual Studio), and I remember I specified that at least on my machine.

              But anyway, the burden is on you to say where I was criticize Qt (unfairly). Or maybe Java.
              Last edited by ciplogic; 06-10-2013, 02:34 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Half of this thread is proof of why Phoronix should not have published their article. It is sensationalism and unprofessional. I blame the summer heat.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  Qnx isn't a toy and I wasn't talking about Qnx. When I said small operating systems I meant toys like Haiku or BeOS. There are embedded Linux versions which are also very small, but they're not the toys as well. My original point was size doesn't matter, but design.
                  Haiku is a toy (hobby) OS, BeOS is just an obsolete real use OS. In its moment was of marginal use, but it was actually a professional project, and was modern (of course, most of its features were rendered obsolete with time, due to its commercial failure).

                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  I've never said it's bad (but I'm not saying it's good, because there are reasons why bigger operating systems aren't using same thing).
                  Actually, you said it's useless crap...
                  [/QUOTE]

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                    Actually, you said it's useless crap...
                    [/QUOTE]

                    I said this about Haiku not about multi threaded GUI.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                      So what it remains to settle from your side, is to give quotations when I was "blaming" Qt or Java. I tried to support most of points of views with goods and bads. The "worst" things I found myself close, it was to benchmark multiple applications startup, when someone said something like that "Mono is a pig" in startup, and Qt is so good - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH-VrnIV-rs Other topic (again, I will let you to find it), I remember that there were applications written in C# which were more lightweight than their C++ equivalent (SharpDevelop vs Visual Studio), and I remember I specified that at least on my machine.

                      But anyway, the burden is on you to say where I was criticize Qt (unfairly). Or maybe Java.
                      You were saying Amarok is slower than Banshee or uses more memory, but I showed you it was a different. Tomboy - a simple note taking application - was heavier than Firefox and it was also showed to you. SharpDevelop or Visual Studio could offer less features and that's why they were more lightweight. It's unprovable if you were criticizing Qt unfairly or fairly, but it was shown to you Qt applications are usually lighter and more responsive.

                      http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...163#post177163

                      You were trying to convince us java is worse than MS MONO.
                      Last edited by kraftman; 06-11-2013, 04:03 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                        You were saying Amarok is slower than Banshee or uses more memory, but I showed you it was a different. Tomboy - a simple note taking application - was heavier than Firefox and it was also showed to you. SharpDevelop or Visual Studio could offer less features and that's why they were more lightweight. It's unprovable if you were criticizing Qt unfairly or fairly, but it was shown to you Qt applications are usually lighter and more responsive.

                        http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...163#post177163

                        You were trying to convince us java is worse than MS MONO.
                        Do we read the same messages?

                        I said: AmaroK starts slower than Banshee (and this was shown!). Is it different from the statement of Banshee being faster (faster in playing a 3 minutes song? Will it play it in 2 minutes 30 seconds!?). It use (at least at the time) less memory.

                        So, it is not unfair, this part, right?

                        Did I defend Tomboy for memory usage? Or did I defend it as it was an useful application (for people that were not memory conscious), right?

                        I think exactly in the post, the center part is the most important (because it shows the context of the topic, plus my views) :
                        This is here, 2 answers earlier of what was told by you:
                        http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...144#post177144
                        Also, I've wrote things that disagree with Miguel on his page, so taking this into perspective is equal like an alter-ego of Miguel enters on his page to criticize him?!
                        At the end, my messages were about reasonable thinking, not biases. I honestly don't like KDE look, but I do think that is an amazing piece of software, so I don't write crap about KDE. Also, I don't attack Nokia for its contributions to Qt or KDE (yes Nokia pay developers for KDE project), and I do think that a lot of technologies to Linux bring more choice than fewer. Why you don't attack the opensourceness of Qt that have also a comercial license? Why don't attack LLVM/CLang that "sneak" into a lot of opensource projects?
                        It looks to me, that what I asked all around the topic was: "I personally found Mono useful, and the FUD that was told about Mono is as equal for Qt/Nokia, or Apple/Clang, wasn't it?" Also, some claims (like the startup time), I tested them and I found them lacking (because people think to Mono as "enterprisey", so all Mono applications are by definition slow), I rembember the Amarok + QtCreator was like 21 seconds, when Banshee and MonoDevelop was like 14-15 seconds.

                        If you try to see that Java is worse than Mono, please read again, I said: C#/Mono is slower (in raw performance numbers), but is better integrated with desktop (If you know JNI, and you compare with PInvoke, you know what I'm talking about). Also as of the time of writing, can you name some Gnome applications written in Java? Azureus (even is not a Gnome application)!? Eclipse (!?) Really, I don't know any! At least on Gnome at that time was at least a bit different (thanks to Novell): Gnome Do, F-Spot, Banshee, Beagle, Tomboy, MonoDevelop were targetting Gnome/Gtk# by default, not WinForms. Do you know any Java integration to write Gnome applications? Maybe can you point to me to a tutorial how to set Java with Gtk?
                        Last edited by ciplogic; 06-11-2013, 11:39 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                          I'll just put it out there that you can run Linux on 4 MB RAM and a floppy disk. That kernel will be stripped to hell, and you get basics only, but it runs and will do its work.
                          By now you need a 2+MB kernel. I know this because I've tried...I wonder what BFS does to kernel size/mem use.
                          But 4 MB RAM is still correct. boot with mem=4096

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
                            By now you need a 2+MB kernel. I know this because I've tried...I wonder what BFS does to kernel size/mem use.
                            But 4 MB RAM is still correct. boot with mem=4096
                            Why would a scheduler change affect that in any noticeable way?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                              Why would a scheduler change affect that in any noticeable way?
                              From http://ck-hack.blogspot.be/2010/10/o...-illumos.html:
                              Originally posted by Con Kolivas
                              As it is, if you remove the CGROUPS code as well as CFS that BFS replaces in the mainline linux kernel, you'd end up with almost 20,000 lines less code.

                              Comment




                              • http://de.sphinux.org/misc/docs/sphinux-comparison.pdf

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X