Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    The problem I mentioned earlier is not the only one. For instance ext4, NTFS and even HFS+ (I see OS X mentioned) are all journaled file systems. Was journaling enabled in these tests? I don't see this information mentioned anywhere.

    I don't mean to offend the author but perhaps someone more competent should do these benchmarks, i.e., someone with some knowledge of how operating systems actually work. Knowing how to run a program does not count as OS knowledge.

    Cheers,
    Bogdan
    Bogdan, the author is pretty much the main force behind the program and he is helped by people who know their shit.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
      then you must be doing something wrong

      for me it's somewhat the opposite:

      I can work with Windows 7 most of the time but during heavy copying - and especially during antivirus scanning (set to high priority), indexing of files with copernic desktop, google desktop, etc. you simply can't work with it - the delays take MINUTES
      - this really shouldn't affect productivity
      Wait a moment, you set the virus scan to *high priority* and you are wondering why the delays take minutes? Good god!

      Virus scans should always run at low or idle priorities.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Love4Boobies View Post
        The problem I mentioned earlier is not the only one. For instance ext4, NTFS and even HFS+ (I see OS X mentioned) are all journaled file systems. Was journaling enabled in these tests? I don't see this information mentioned anywhere.

        I don't mean to offend the author but perhaps someone more competent should do these benchmarks, i.e., someone with some knowledge of how operating systems actually work. Knowing how to run a program does not count as OS knowledge.

        Cheers,
        Bogdan
        well BOTH OSes are journaled genius, aka NTFS is journaled by default and is not easy to turn it off and ext4 comes journaled by default (if you dont want journal you just go all way back to ext2).

        maybe you need to check your "OS" knowledge

        Comment


        • #19
          First of all, file systems are journaled, not OSes. Your observation that both of them are journaled is great, esp. since my quote says exactly that. Journaling can be enabled/disabled for both NTFS and ext4. I'm not sure why I should care that journaling is enabled by default. Even if it were normal to assume that journaling was turned on for both file systems then the benchmark is incomplete. Which one's faster with journaling disabled? Any benchmark should give the appropriate information.

          Next time please at least look up the information you claim to understand.

          Cheers,
          Bogdan

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
            Wait a moment, you set the virus scan to *high priority* and you are wondering why the delays take minutes? Good god!

            Virus scans should always run at low or idle priorities.
            you read the rest - right ?

            this was just to get some attention

            copernic desktop, google desktop, etc. afaik weren't set to high priority - in fact they were at normal priority and the system still sucked

            if it's a GUI-based Operating System the should keep the GUI usable at ALL times

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Love4Boobies View Post
              First of all, file systems are journaled, not OSes. Your observation that both of them are journaled is great, esp. since my quote says exactly that. Journaling can be enabled/disabled for both NTFS and ext4. I'm not sure why I should care that journaling is enabled by default. Even if it were normal to assume that journaling was turned on for both file systems then the benchmark is incomplete. Which one's faster with journaling disabled? Any benchmark should give the appropriate information.

              Next time please at least look up the information you claim to understand.

              Cheers,
              Bogdan
              Michael always uses the defaults in these benchmarks, and the default for both systems is to have journaling enabled. If you want to test how different tweaks affect performance, you should try it out yourself. Michael generally won't do those tests himself. If you think that makes the whole test worthless, then you probably shouldn't even be reading Phoronix, becuase it's just going to keep pissing you off.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Love4Boobies View Post
                First of all, file systems are journaled, not OSes. Your observation that both of them are journaled is great, esp. since my quote says exactly that. Journaling can be enabled/disabled for both NTFS and ext4. I'm not sure why I should care that journaling is enabled by default. Even if it were normal to assume that journaling was turned on for both file systems then the benchmark is incomplete. Which one's faster with journaling disabled? Any benchmark should give the appropriate information.

                Next time please at least look up the information you claim to understand.

                Cheers,
                Bogdan
                Unless stated otherwise, Michael only tests the default configuration.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  If you think that makes the whole test worthless, then you probably shouldn't even be reading Phoronix, becuase it's just going to keep pissing you off.
                  No, I think the test is worthless because it's wrong for the reasons I stated here.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Love4Boobies View Post
                    No, I think the test is worthless because it's wrong for the reasons I stated here.
                    I agree the Cygwin thing is a good catch. IOZone sucks as a benchmark anyway, I'd much prefer a more realistic test. Still, the FS comparison was only a portion of the benchmarks here, and I don't think anyone should be very surprised to see NTFS slower than EXT4.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The disk I/O benchmarks would be much more interesting if you also reported CPU utilization.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Enrox View Post
                        So the test has issues on OS X as well.
                        In a CPU raw test there's no way the OS can have that effect, as simple as that...
                        Maybe it's accelerated on Linux?

                        To do a comparison that is meaningful you should always test native code... who cares if a test written for Linux and ported with some type of compatibility layer is slower on Windows!
                        Was this emulated on Windows?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Was this emulated on Windows?
                          Yep. The benchmarking software does not contain a Windows port, it needs Cygwin, thus making it considerably slower.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Btw. do some SMP benchmarks, please. This should be very interesting to see.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Love4Boobies View Post
                              Yep. The benchmarking software does not contain a Windows port, it needs Cygwin, thus making it considerably slower.
                              Ok, it will be great to see native applications used.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                How about benchmarks of some other file system operations. Like creating and deleting complex directory structures with tens of thousands of files. I'd love to see how windows copes (or fails to cope) with that

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X