Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,396

    Default Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

    Fedora 11 was released earlier this week so we have set out to see how its desktop performance compares to that of Ubuntu 9.04, which was released back in April. Using the Phoronix Test Suite we compared these two leading Linux distributions in tasks like code compilation, Apache web server performance, audio/video encoding, multi-processing, ray-tracing, computational biology, various disk tasks, graphics manipulation, encryption, chess AI, image conversion, database, and other tests.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13950

  2. #2

    Default

    It's obvious why Fedora might be faster (newer kernel, and ext4)
    But seeing as Fedora uses mostly newer versions of all the software (vs Ubuntu) does that mean that the places where Fedora loses are regressions ?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SyXbiT View Post
    It's obvious why Fedora might be faster (newer kernel, and ext4)
    But seeing for Fedora uses mostly newer versions of all the software (vs Ubuntu) does that mean that the places where Fedora loses are regressions ?
    Fedora has SELinux enabled for default and it has sometimes big impact on performance:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/3/350

    Ubuntu however, uses AppArmour, but I don't know if this slow its down.
    Last edited by kraftman; 06-11-2009 at 01:09 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Better slow than crashing every 2 minutes I says.

  5. #5

    Default compilation benchmarks

    It is a bad idea to have compilation benchmarks with different versions of a compiler. Because the speed of different compilers is an added variable to determining the speed of the OS. In fact, the difference of speed between different compilers might be the only reason for a speed difference between the OSes.

    Also, as a developer, the speed of compilation is one of the last factors for consideration when choosing a compiler. I'd be primarily concerned with the speed of generated executable and supported languages, standards, and libraries.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    Yes, also compile benchmarks are really stupid to compare on other systems, because depending how many depends are installed on a system the compile time may be longer or slower. PTS sometimes shows the fastest results when it did not fully complete

  7. #7

    Default

    I should also say that I enjoy this site very much. And that is important to keep a tab on performance for the community. And one more thing, it isn't hard for me to skip looking at the compiler speed benchmarks when viewing the article.

    It is a bad idea for me to offer constructive criticism, without saying I like everything else!

    Quote Originally Posted by nathanvaneps View Post
    It is a bad idea to have compilation benchmarks with different versions of a compiler. Because the speed of different compilers is an added variable to determining the speed of the OS. In fact, the difference of speed between different compilers might be the only reason for a speed difference between the OSes.

    Also, as a developer, the speed of compilation is one of the last factors for consideration when choosing a compiler. I'd be primarily concerned with the speed of generated executable and supported languages, standards, and libraries.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    565

    Default

    I think "stupid" is a bit of harsh. I agree with the objections, but I think compilation of a rather large project has historically been used as an overall system benchmark because it exercises CPU, memory and disk read/writes. So, besides the caveats you all provided, it's still a nice benchmark if taken with a grain of salt

    Michael: are you planning a 64 bit comparison? It would be nice to add it to the mix. Also, would it be possible to run Ubuntu on ext4 too see how much of the disk performance is coming from other factors? (different kernel, different compiler, libraries perhaps?)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    Compile tests are not by definition bad benchmarks. As long as you use the SAME reference system and only change cpu/board it is valid to compare. But testing different distributions for compile speed leads to errors.
    Last edited by Kano; 06-11-2009 at 02:55 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    565

    Default 64 bit?

    (sorry, I resubmitted the same post by mistake, deleting it)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •