Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Preview: Ubuntu's Performance Over The Past Two Years

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

  • #91
    It's still getting there. I'd have to say that 10.04 was pretty much the fastest release I've ever used. System speed slowed down in releases after (even with Xubuntu), but 13.04 is somewhat closer to getting back. I tried out the Ubuntu 13.10 Alpha dev release for awhile and was pretty impressed with the speed. That was with Unity running so hoping that Xubuntu 13.10 will be equally speedy.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by frign View Post
      If we knew for sure that a begins with b, then it would be as simple as a = a + strlen(b).
      Because that's not the case, we have to do it with this technique.

      It's also not logic-messing, but the processing of device-identifiers (part of eudev), so there's no real way around char-arrays, which are factually 8 bit unsigned-integer-arrays (effective enough) and in need to be returned.

      In case you have a better idea, please let me know.
      well i have some idea like XML/UUID for device identifiers/atomic operation but i need to update my knowledge since i got those ideas when udev and hal were mainstream and many things changed from those days

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by synaptix View Post
        It's still getting there. I'd have to say that 10.04 was pretty much the fastest release I've ever used. System speed slowed down in releases after (even with Xubuntu), but 13.04 is somewhat closer to getting back. I tried out the Ubuntu 13.10 Alpha dev release for awhile and was pretty impressed with the speed. That was with Unity running so hoping that Xubuntu 13.10 will be equally speedy.
        Did you use vanilla 13.10 or did you use the XMir PPA? Because the first, right now, gives a false impression which doesn't correlate for Unity with what end users will see, since right now it uses X.org. For Xubuntu, the alpha is closer to what you will get, since it will keep using X.org on 13.10.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by frign View Post
          The good side-effect of knowing Gentoo is that when I get to setup Debian on a client's computer I know how to fix problems, because I learned how it works (Debian/Ubuntu and Gentoo are actually very similar on the low level).
          This is something that I never had imagined by myself.

          Originally posted by frign View Post
          On the technical side, having a fast computer, of course, makes it hard to see which system's faster. My current computer is a quad-core i7 one, so I shouldn't see any difference, too.
          For testing purposes, I set up Gentoo on a smaller system (fit-PC2 by CompuLab) and compared it to a fresh installation of Debian (Xfce). Especially using the Desktop Environment, you could notice some differences.
          Humans are actually quite sensitive when it comes to little time-delays.
          Debian ran just fine and I don't have any reason to complain. But using Gentoo on the other hand, it was noticeably faster. That was my personal experience and I might just fall for the placebo-effect, but everyone's free to do benchmarks.

          If you search for benchmarks on the net, you normally find ones comparing different optimization-levels (which is BS). Honestly, no one really did a comparison between Gentoo and Debian for example (Correct me if I'm wrong).
          I don't know any modern comparison with a binary distro. Some forums posters in the internet report about a 10% speed advantage, but fail to give any detail of what exactly compared and how. I have also seen the -Os/O2/O3 comparisons, but nothing about USE-flags

          Comment


          • #95
            Benchmarks are needed

            Originally posted by juanrga View Post
            I don't know any modern comparison with a binary distro. Some forums posters in the internet report about a 10% speed advantage, but fail to give any detail of what exactly compared and how. I have also seen the -Os/O2/O3 comparisons, but nothing about USE-flags
            I'm sure we need some real benchmarks to actually have a basis for argumentation.
            I don't think there is an _overall_ 10% speed advantage, but there's definitely even more in some areas.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by juanrga View Post
              I don't know any modern comparison with a binary distro. Some forums posters in the internet report about a 10% speed advantage, but fail to give any detail of what exactly compared and how. I have also seen the -Os/O2/O3 comparisons, but nothing about USE-flags
              The thing about comparing use-flags is that, first, there are too many variants, and second, it, by definition, means there is no feature parity when doing the comparison. Benchmarks are only extrapolated when there is feature parity. The point in use-flags is not loading things you don't use, and this is inherently a custom setting for a custom user, and thus not extrapolated. The closest you can get to actually make a valid comparison is stating you will always compare minimal features for a given package with default in another distro, with the same optimization flags (so to compare only the overhead introduced by features).

              Comment


              • #97
                Good idea!

                Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                The thing about comparing use-flags is that, first, there are too many variants, and second, it, by definition, means there is no feature parity when doing the comparison. Benchmarks are only extrapolated when there is feature parity. The point in use-flags is not loading things you don't use, and this is inherently a custom setting for a custom user, and thus not extrapolated. The closest you can get to actually make a valid comparison is stating you will always compare minimal features for a given package with default in another distro, with the same optimization flags (so to compare only the overhead introduced by features).
                Yes, I think you have to go this way.
                Going minimal may be the best choice.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by frign View Post
                  I'm sure we need some real benchmarks to actually have a basis for argumentation.
                  I don't think there is an _overall_ 10% speed advantage, but there's definitely even more in some areas.
                  I agree benchmarks are needed. I would confess that less than a 10% disappoints me.

                  Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                  The thing about comparing use-flags is that, first, there are too many variants, and second, it, by definition, means there is no feature parity when doing the comparison. Benchmarks are only extrapolated when there is feature parity. The point in use-flags is not loading things you don't use, and this is inherently a custom setting for a custom user, and thus not extrapolated. The closest you can get to actually make a valid comparison is stating you will always compare minimal features for a given package with default in another distro, with the same optimization flags (so to compare only the overhead introduced by features).
                  Many benchmarks/reviews there out are not extrapolated to user specific hardware/software: different chipset, memory, disks, gpus, drivers, kernel, libs, and apps version can make differences in scores. However benchmarks/reviews are useful to get an idea.

                  If it is possible to benchmarks three different kernels, or ten different OSs, or six different CPUs, why couldn't be benchmarked five different use-flags in the same system, just to see what happens? They would be useful to get an idea.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by juanrga View Post
                    Many benchmarks/reviews there out are not extrapolated to user specific hardware/software: different chipset, memory, disks, gpus, drivers, kernel, libs, and apps version can make differences in scores. However benchmarks/reviews are useful to get an idea.

                    If it is possible to benchmarks three different kernels, or ten different OSs, or six different CPUs, why couldn't be benchmarked five different use-flags in the same system, just to see what happens? They would be useful to get an idea.
                    The point was that you have no way to tell what brought the improvement, or if any user will use that use-flags at all. You could do for many combinations, but that would make it harder to read and would take a lot more time. You can get the idea with the method I proposed, anyway.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X