Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.

    No benchmark ever done by Phoronix shows that.
    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

    compare that to my Gentoo system with 2.6.34 or 2.6.35:
    even during heaviest transfers, compiling, etc. it's still responsible and I'm NOT using BFS or BFQ - only stock CFS and CFQ - it's not even locking up when doing a desktop search indexing, copying my roughly 800 GB /home partition to another disk (both encrypted), hearing webradio, surfing, etc. etc.
    - the only problem also taking MINUTES to react is when it's swapping out memory but that's a problem due to heavy swapping when I use all of my memory (not the typical case)

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by RealNC
      The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.
      Originally posted by kraftman
      I think you're wrong. Here's the issue probably and finally, it seems to be fixed soon:

      http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/1/40
      Both interesting observations. I can't speak much for the situation in Windows since I only use it to play one game (XP). The few times I touch a Vista laptop from some friend I find it lagging with lots of disk I/O. What I can tell for sure is that Linux doesn't behave ideally either. Be it Firefox touching its database or some other program doing something, the whole system is not responsive for as long as the read/writes last. It would be excellent if that commit fixed this issue.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by yotambien View Post
        Both interesting observations. I can't speak much for the situation in Windows since I only use it to play one game (XP). The few times I touch a Vista laptop from some friend I find it lagging with lots of disk I/O. What I can tell for sure is that Linux doesn't behave ideally either. Be it Firefox touching its database or some other program doing something, the whole system is not responsive for as long as the read/writes last. It would be excellent if that commit fixed this issue.
        There's definitely some problem in both. In 32bit XP when system was doing something in the background (antivir or some other activity, maybe refreshing Add/remove programs) it become unresponsive. There's similar behavior, but in 64bit Linux when copying large files. Me and my friend didn't notice this is 32bit Linux and afaik he didn't notice this in his Windows. I hope it will be fixed this time, because it can be very irritating.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          Why it can't? Search for OS X benchmarks and you'll see Linux also outperformed it in this test.
          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...
          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!
          What's the point in such a test? Do you want me to write a test on Windows and then port it poorly on Linux to get opposite results? LOL!

          Comment


          • #15
            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

            Comment


            • #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

                      Working...
                      X