Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 139

Thread: SphinUX OS Claims To Be ~150% Faster Than GNU/Linux

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Wow. Talk about ridiculous. I mean who would run Unity on ArchLinux?
    People do believe it or not. chenxiaolong does an absolute power of work providing Unity to Arch users, despite having to deal with all the Ubuntu molested packages/patches etc, so kudos to him.

    As for this "OS" in question, I'm amazed someone went to this much effort for a troll. Micheal himself must have been having a fair old chuckle even writing the article, as all the claims made by the project are somewhat easy to see through and just way too outlandish.
    Last edited by ElderSnake; 06-05-2013 at 08:32 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasen View Post
    ... from Alexandria, Egypt.
    The included (Linux) kernel, identifies root@sphinux-lsx as having built it in an EET timezone (Eastern European Time), which is used in that city.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chenxiaolong View Post
    • /sbin/koko-wawa
    • (Removed boost, so can't test right now)
    From 'strings' output:
    Code:
    #           koko-wawa, is a LSX utility to benchmark your kernel's switching behaviour              #
    # Created by Ahmed G. Elnil <yuri@sphinux.org>, SphinUX Community, Alexandria, Egypt - 2013       #
    #                           Feel free to use, it's public domain                                    #
    Measuring actual sleep delays when requesting
    ...
    And even that code seems to be stolen without credit, from Stack Overflow user Tronic:
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2...ch-in-linux-os
    Last edited by stevenc; 06-05-2013 at 08:49 PM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenc View Post
    From 'strings' output:
    Code:
    #           koko-wawa, is a LSX utility to benchmark your kernel's switching behaviour              #
    # Created by Ahmed G. Elnil <yuri@sphinux.org>, SphinUX Community, Alexandria, Egypt - 2013       #
    #                           Feel free to use, it's public domain                                    #
    Measuring actual sleep delays when requesting
    ...
    And even that code seems to be stolen without credit, from Stack Overflow user Tronic:
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2...ch-in-linux-os
    Thank you very much for this.

    I've just send a complaint with many of the points discussed here to SourceForge to have the project removed. We have way more than enough proof to show that this is a shady distro not created in the interest of its users with developers that steal code and ignore software licenses.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chenxiaolong View Post
    TL;DR: There's a script that sends logs, hardware information, and takes a screenshot of the active Xorg session to http://www.sphinux.org/bug_report.php

    ...
    Thank you for taking the time and exposing this.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F i L View Post
    Thank you for taking the time and exposing this.

    No problem.

    Here is the exact script I'm referring to: http://paste.kde.org/759530/

    The screenshot is being captured at line 34 and 35, the fake authentication is at line 81, and the upload process is at line 53. Another thing to note is that all of the data is uploaded though unsecured HTTP. It is incredibly easy for someone to sniff out this information using a tool like Wireshark.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Time to put on my best Paul Hogan voice.

    "That's not an os; this is an os!"
    *Pulls out Wheatonix

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    I'm pretty sure we're presented with the usual situation: the size of the OS is generally inversely proportional to its speed. When Linux was much smaller there were also astonishing benchmark results, when it matured to support a much wider array of APIs, drivers and hw it did so generally at the expense of speed.
    I didn't hear such bullshit since a long time. BeOS, Haiku, DOS are much slower than bigger operating systems. It's because of architecture not because of being small or not. Furthermore, Linux doesn't use 90% of its features on a common PC, so your point is invalid.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    398

    Default

    According to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqupsTFyuGE ... it boots and is recognized as a 2.6.32 Linux kernel (look on the boot sequence, at 17:06 ), so it looks to me that this SphinuX is more or less a modularizing effort inside the Linux kernel that may reduce in some use-cases the IO and/or maybe some kernel modules.

    I think that the 100% and 300% kind of speedups refer just to the use-cases when this new infrastructure reduces the IO (so in an I/O kind of benchmark it may work like 2-3 times faster) and the memory is again related with the minimalist kind of loading of the drivers.

    As it looks, it uses standard compilers (like GCC) and similarly standard file systems (Ext3 and Ext4), so the Phoronix like benchmarking, which stresses the user-space I think it will behave (more or less) like a 2.6.32 kernel with some patches on it. Also, the source doesn't say 100% or things like this performance speedup against what. I think that is in case of Ext4 with encryption vs Ext4 with Xor++ (their encryption scheme).

    So based on what is written, I can expect the following:
    - some boot scenarios would boot faster on a similar package selection and using a bit less kernel memory
    - for embedded cases, the kernel can be "up-to" 300% smaller memory
    - in low memory systems, where it will be more IO, the smaller kernel (Sphinx) may work a bit better
    - on disk encrypted disks, a faster encryption scheme, which may be "good enough" may be faster than Ext4 than the default Ubuntu with Encryption

    What would not happen:
    - Sphinux would run the same CPU bound codes (which are computed in user-space or on video card, but not on kernel) to be more than 5% faster/slower than 2.6.20+ kernels, so Michael will be able to "bust" the myth
    - Database benchmarks or IO tests without encryption on Ext4 should work similarly as a 2.6.32 kernel
    - Loading KDE or whatever environment with similar package selection will look and feel as any bare-metal Debian with the same package selection. SphinuX would have more bugs, but other than this, will feel very "upstreamy". Both memory wise and performance

    But Michael is right, the specifics should be told, writing "100% speedup" or "300% less memory" without putting some strings attached is a bit misleading (to say it kindly) and it would be great if the value numbers come with a methodology about how it can be this way.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrin View Post
    the advertised RAM minimum of Puppy and AntiX is also 256 MB RAM I think. And the required minimum not higher than 128 MB.
    I'll just put it out there that you can run Linux on 4 MB RAM and a floppy disk. That kernel will be stripped to hell, and you get basics only, but it runs and will do its work.

Posting Permissions

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