Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

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

  • #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