Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Benchmarks Of Debian Etch, Lenny & Squeeze

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,117

    Default Benchmarks Of Debian Etch, Lenny & Squeeze

    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of Debian Etch, Lenny & Squeeze

    With Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" set to be released in the coming months, we have decided to run a set of benchmarks looking at the performance of Debian 6.0 across different sub-systems relative to the performance of Debian 5.0 "Lenny" and Debian 4.0 "Etch" to see how this new release may stack up.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15459

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    343

    Default

    mega regress:<

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NomadDemon View Post
    mega regress:<
    Possibly the cost of greater reliability.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,186

    Default

    Typo on the first page, ext4 should be ext3.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by loonyphoenix View Post
    Possibly the cost of greater reliability.
    I wish someone with money to spare on hard drives would prove that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NomadDemon View Post
    mega regress:<
    glibc -> eglibc

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    glibc -> eglibc
    The benchmarks that regressed all had something to do with disk IO. The CPU-oriented tasks increased their performance. So I don't think the eglibc transition has anything to do with it; so I think more careful use of barriers and such to improve data security is responsible for the slow-downs. Or at least I hope so.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default

    OT this is the first time I've looked at Phoronix's benchmarks in some time. I'm not sure if they've only just been introduced but I'm loving the inclusion of error margins.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etnlWings View Post
    OT this is the first time I've looked at Phoronix's benchmarks in some time. I'm not sure if they've only just been introduced but I'm loving the inclusion of error margins.
    Where have you been then? There have been lots of articles regarding the new improvements that are coming with PTS 3.0 and all that. That error margin thing is one of those improvements.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default

    I follow Phoronix mostly just to keep in-touch with general *nix and X/Mesa developments. I generally avoided all the benchmarking stuff because, well, without some expression of the confidence of the results, the results were next to meaningless; there was no way to determine the significance of a given value. Hell, for all I knew, the values plotted were the result of a single test - or possible outlier. I understandably fell into the habit of just skipping over any feed headlines including the words, "test", or, "benchmark", like I do for any including the word, "Apple".

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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