Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: MeeGo Netbook Performance: It's Beating Ubuntu & Co

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,126

    Default MeeGo Netbook Performance: It's Beating Ubuntu & Co

    Phoronix: MeeGo Netbook Performance: It's Beating Ubuntu & Co

    The last time we ran a performance comparison of different Linux distributions on netbooks was in late November when benchmarking Chromium OS, Moblin, Fedora, openSUSE, and Ubuntu Netbook Remix. The results were interesting, but now we have a new set of Linux distributions out there, so we have carried out a new comparison. In particular, we are looking closely at how the MeeGo distribution -- which marries Intel's Moblin and Nokia's Maemo projects -- is performing now that it has reached version 1.0. Also in the testing mix are Ubuntu Netbook Remix 10.04 LTS, Moblin 2.1, and Fedora 13.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14975

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,186

    Default

    Michael, I wonder how do you install distros for all the tests? Do you do disk images, automated installs, just click through manually, or something else?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Michael, I wonder how do you install distros for all the tests? Do you do disk images, automated installs, just click through manually, or something else?
    Just go through the install process as any normal user would, while selecting all of the default options and doing clean installs that occupy the entire drive each time.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    143

    Default

    How many times do you run each test?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    I suppose Meego is optimized for Atom processors and that's why it won in encoding tests, right?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crispy View Post
    How many times do you run each test?
    Look at the Phoronix Test Suite source. It varies by test and the std variation between runs.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Very nice article! This comes at a great time since I'm in the process of testing several distros on my Eee PC to see which one works the best for me. 8 seconds boot time is just amazing!

    Anyway, Apopas, moblin was also supposed to be optimized for atom cpus and it's performance is not so great. The guys behind meego are doing something right, that's for sure. This could be the distro that manages to outcast that awful windows 7 starter from netbooks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Oh, I forgot something.

    My only concern with meego is installing software. I know there is the garage, but I suppose it's software library is not as extensive as ubuntu's. Can we still install software from other sources? What about the package format it uses? I've seen these same questions on the meego forum but no straight answer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    66

    Default

    What I'd really like to see in a future Phoronix article is a benchmark of the most popular (and new) lightweight linux distros.

    Distros like Puppy, SliTaz, Zenwalk, TinyMe, Lubuntu and Quirky Linux.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    32

    Default

    So in MeeGo 1.0 we've worked quite a bit on performance and power optimizations (and it seems it pays off ...):
    * We are using a gcc with Atom optimizations (backport from gcc 4.5 basically)
    * We're using SSSE3 for floating point everywhere (-mfpmath=sse); quite some gain on Atom for floating point code
    * We have an Atom optimized memcpy() in glibc (same for some related functions like memcmp etc)
    * We've made sure that the environment variables are set so that normal apps that get compiled get the same CFLAGS as system RPMS get; likewise we've tried to make sure configure detects Atom correctly (there is some funky uname stuff in some configure scripts that get confused easily; don't ask)
    * We've reduced OS overhead from background apps (if background apps take 1% cpu away, this costs both power and 1% performance for foreground apps)
    * We've done a bunch of work on optimizing Qt (unfortunately, due to the 4.7 release dates, most of this did not make it into the 1.0 release)
    * closely monitoring disk performance and working with btrfs upstream
    (this is a balance between data integrity and performance. common sense data integrity wins of course)
    * ... well many more little things all over the map to help performance


    As the article says, there's still a bunch of work to be done, the compositor and graphics are clear areas of work for this.

Posting Permissions

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