Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 Benchmarks

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    597

    Default

    If you actually are running SELINUX you'll see a huge performance hit.
    I'm seeing a 1-5% performance hit due to SELinux on my Fedora, CentOS and RHEL platforms.
    Care to share benchmark figures?
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    Many companies have their own internal-use apps that will be compiled and run on whatever their preferred platform happens to be ..... but I think it's going overboard to say that it's completely senseless or irrelevant.
    Most of the results are from compiler benchmarks which depend mostly on the quality of generated code by the compiler, but not a lot on other factors.
    Its like using SuperPI to compare Windows95 to Windows-7. Sure qou'll get some numbers out, but you're not really benchmarking the operating system.

    I am not saying compiler performance is irrelevant, in the contrary I think the compiler is a critical part. Its just not the only component, and hasn't a whole lot to do with the operating system.

    - Clemens

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default Fixed the O_SYNC problem?

    It is easy to get good performance when you cheat and make fast, unsafe hacks. Have they yet fixed those problems in Linux?

    http://milek.blogspot.com/2010/12/li...-barriers.html
    "This is really scary. I wonder how many developers knew about it especially when coding for Linux when data safety was paramount. Sometimes it feels that some Linux developers are coding to win benchmarks and do not necessarily care about data safety, correctness and standards like POSIX. What is even worse is that some of them don't even bother to tell you about it in official documentation (at least the O_SYNC/O_DSYNC issue is documented in the man page now)."

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    It is easy to get good performance when you cheat and make fast, unsafe hacks. Have they yet fixed those problems in Linux?

    http://milek.blogspot.com/2010/12/li...-barriers.html
    "This is really scary. I wonder how many developers knew about it especially when coding for Linux when data safety was paramount. Sometimes it feels that some Linux developers are coding to win benchmarks and do not necessarily care about data safety, correctness and standards like POSIX. What is even worse is that some of them don't even bother to tell you about it in official documentation (at least the O_SYNC/O_DSYNC issue is documented in the man page now)."
    How about just reading the comments under the blog post you're actually linking to? The answer is right there. But then again, despite formulating this post as a question, you're not really posting this link to get an an answer - you're doing it because you think you're scoring points in your misguided "praise Solaris by badmouthing Linux" crusade. As usual, you just manage to make yourself look bad by obviously not actually understanding the technical content of the posts you're linking to, and furthermore by "asking" something that is already answered in the commentary in the very link you posted.


    Nonetheless, to summarize here, since you're too lazy to read your own links: yes, O_SYNC is now POSIX compliant in Linux.

    Adding to this, and making a couple of points that weren't made in the commentary to the above blog post:

    1. O_SYNC == O_DSYNC really was not that big a deal. The worst that could happen is that if your system crashes, you MIGHT end up with timestamps for a file not being updated. That's all. The reason it took so long to get fixed was pretty much that almost no one cared. Incidentally, AIX also defines O_SYNC = O_DSYNC by default, though this can be changed by setting an environment variable.

    2. For those who absolutely needed it, proper O_SYNC was available in Linux before, as well, by picking the right filesystem (xfs) with the osyncisosync mount option.

    In closing, as I've tried to point out before, both Solaris and Linux are excellent systems, but neither are perfect. It's easy enough to dig up ugly bugs and deficiencies in either, if you deliberately go looking for it. This is the only reason that I include this link:

    http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/...oss-still.html

    For those too lazy to follow the link: fsync was broken in ZFS / Solaris 10 until April this year.

    That's two months _after_ Linux implemented full O_SYNC support in the generic layer. Moreover - Linux O_SYNC == O_DSYNC equivalence was clearly documented. The ZFS behavior was not.

    Does this somehow "prove" that Solaris/ZFS sucks? Of course not - no more than your link "proves" anything about Linux. However, you may want to be a bit more careful about throwing this particular alarmist blog post around, since anyone choosing to play the "dueling OS bugs" game can so easily counter this particular post with a more recent and uglier flaw in the OS/Filesystem you put so much passion into promoting.

    But that's likely the case for just about any such post/bug reference in either direction, and that, in fact, was my main point.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    TheOrqWithVagrant

    If you look at the dates, I posted my link early. Back then there were no relevant comments from linux people on the link, all of the relevant comments are new. Just look at the date and you will see. In short, there were no sane comments when I posted my link. The comments you refer to, are new.

    But that is not the problem. The problem is that Linux deliberately cuts corners and cheat. THAT is a problem. Linux does not obey standards but cheats to get good benchmarks. Not following standards is a bad thing.


    Then you show a post where ZFS had a problem. So? That problem is considered as a bug, and it is not a design choice by ZFS engineers. ZFS is for enterprise. ZFS must adhere to Enterprise standards to provide data integrity. If ZFS does not, it is considered as a bug. Not at an active design choice.

    The main point is that Linux - by design - cheats and cuts corners. ZFS had a bug, everybody has bugs. Linux has lots of bugs, which you are surely aware of. But Solaris is not cheating by design.

    To summarize: Linux - by design - cheats and dont follow standards to get good benchmarks. Solaris follows standards and does not cheat (but Solaris might have bugs). FYI, Linux also has bugs.



    Regarding my bad mouthing of Linux, so what? It pisses me off when Linux people bad mouthes Solaris. So I just balance them. If the Linux fanbois stopped bad mouth Solaris, I would also stop. I show a re-action. Not action. Linux people acts - I re-act on their actions. Is that a problem that I react on Linux fanboys badmouthing of Solaris?

  6. #16

    Default

    Don't care about Kebabbert, because it's a known troll from osnews.com. He can't stand slowlaris is nearly dead. Even Oracle starts focusing on Linux on sparcs, so obsolete slowlaris will simply go away.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Don't care about Kebabbert, because it's a known troll from osnews.com. He can't stand slowlaris is nearly dead.
    First of all, Solaris is faster than Linux on big work loads, I have showed you benchmarks which proves this. For instance SAP. Linux used faster cores, and faster RAM, and still was slower. That is due to bad scaling from Linux, as we know.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Even Oracle starts focusing on Linux on sparcs, so obsolete slowlaris will simply go away.
    Larry has publicly said that Solaris is better than Linux. So, no, Solaris will not be killed off. Some customers prefer Linux, because of politics.
    http://www.serverwatch.com/news/arti...-at-Oracle.htm

    "I love Linux. We're big supporters of Linux, [but] Solaris is an older and more capable operating system," Ellison said.

    While he expects to see Solaris primarily at the high end, it will go all the way down to the desktop for development. Nevertheless, he stressed that the high end is the home for Solaris, which could be a cloud of x86 or SUN SPARC machines.

    "We think it will be a long time before Linux ever catches up," Ellison said."



    And, as I have proved, Linux cheats and does not obey standards, just to win some benchmarks. This makes Linux buggy and does not protect your file data, as I have shown links from researchers about Linux filesystems might corrupt your data. ZFS protects your data.

    The Linux design choices makes it difficult for Linux to protect file data, just read the link I posted and you will see. That is one of the problems why Linux people are desperate after Solaris tech, such as DTrace and ZFS.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Solaris is the no 1 server os in 2010, on this list:
    http://www.serverwatch.com/article.php/3917081


    It seems to me that Oracle is prioritizing Solaris above Linux here. Larry says Solaris is the best Unix, and they are working on making Linux better.

    "...Oracle is planning to take over the world. Or, at the very least, the server OS world. That's the logical conclusion to reach after hearing the recent comments of Larry Ellison, Oracle's bombastic CEO. "Solaris is clearly the No. 1 Unix, and we're working very hard at making Oracle Enterprise Linux the number one Linux,..."
    http://www.serverwatch.com/trends/ar...Domination.htm

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,795

    Default

    "Bombastic CEO"...

    lolz.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    597

    Default

    I wonder why Phoronix' spam protection hasn't kicked up until now.. (Cause we all know the RHEL benchmarks have every to do with Solaris, right?)
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

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
  •