Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

15-Way Linux Distribution / Operating System Comparison, Including Windows 10 & WSL

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 15-Way Linux Distribution / Operating System Comparison, Including Windows 10 & WSL

    Phoronix: 15-Way Linux Distribution / Operating System Comparison, Including Windows 10 & WSL

    As part of the large Linux performance tests we have begun and continuing through June with Phoronix celebrating its 14th birthday next week along with the 10th anniversary of the Phoronix Test Suite 1.0 release, for your viewing pleasure today is a 15-way Linux distribution / operating system comparison testing not only the leading and latest Linux distributions but also Windows 10 April 2018 Update and Linux on Windows WSL.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=26361

  • ruthan
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

    When were we talking about install apps? 'Cause I was under the impression that we were talking about the OS as a whole, so my post is about the whole OS...
    It was example why si MacOS user friendly for normal User, who just want to browse the internet, send emails, play some videos and music and play some games.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by ruthan View Post

    I would bet that you can train the monkey to install Mac OS app by drag and drop icon to icon, in Windows you have to click multiple times on Next Button and there are "annoying" questions as aplication location, Startmenu location, licence, .Net and DirectX installation etc.. I nothing against simplicity, if there is optimal possibility to choice.
    When were we talking about install apps? 'Cause I was under the impression that we were talking about the OS as a whole, so my post is about the whole OS...

    Leave a comment:


  • ruthan
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

    I've used macOS a few times in the past (last time was little over 2 years ago) and not once did I find it user-friendly. Pretty? Yes. Usable? Yes. But user-friendly? No. Maybe a bit more user-friendly than Windows, I'll give it that edge, but that's it.
    I would bet that you can train the monkey to install Mac OS app by drag and drop icon to icon, in Windows you have to click multiple times on Next Button and there are "annoying" questions as aplication location, Startmenu location, licence, .Net and DirectX installation etc.. I nothing against simplicity, if there is optimal possibility to choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • gilboa
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    Because the other distros were tested with their desktop state too. This was testing on a Core i9, not a Xeon or EPYC.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Never the less, given the fact that you are conducting a server load test, wouldn't choosing the server variant of all distributions make more sense?

    - Gilboa

    Leave a comment:


  • Royi
    replied
    This tests shows the compiling configuration not the OS performance.
    By the way, did you compile for Windows using GCC or Visual Studio?
    What flags were used for Windows?

    You need to use the same binary on all systems so the difference will be the OS and not its compiler.

    Leave a comment:


  • arjan_intel
    replied
    Originally posted by joebonrichie View Post
    So i did some testing oh how clearlinux got that crazy zstd compression result. Basically, they sort of cheat, they have a patch which always enables multithreading, see https://github.com/clearlinux-pkgs/zstd/blob/master/multi-thread-default.patch.
    https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...FO-ZSTDNOOPT82
    I'd not call it a cheat; at least it wasnt the intent. Defaulting to single threaded in this era of multi-core is not a good default realistically, and for Clear Linux I changed this default (I realize that this is an opinion, but that's ok)

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by ruthan View Post
    No Windows 7 for comparision, that WIndows 10 update half year cycle is killing them.. To be fair, some games (real games on Open Arena which are poorly written for Window) should be added, because Windows are for games and Visual Studio.. and maybe MacOS make sense for user interface friedlyness..
    I've used macOS a few times in the past (last time was little over 2 years ago) and not once did I find it user-friendly. Pretty? Yes. Usable? Yes. But user-friendly? No. Maybe a bit more user-friendly than Windows, I'll give it that edge, but that's it.

    Leave a comment:


  • joebonrichie
    replied
    So i did some testing oh how clearlinux got that crazy zstd compression result. Basically, they sort of cheat, they have a patch which always enables multithreading, see https://github.com/clearlinux-pkgs/zstd/blob/master/multi-thread-default.patch. I did some testing on Solus enabling various optimisations e.g. PGO, speed flags (e.g. 03), funroll-loops, etc. which only had a negligible performance increase for the system/compress-zstd benchmark.

    https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...FO-ZSTDNOOPT82

    Leave a comment:


  • austin754
    replied
    Observations on a few of the workloads used in this test:

    1. cachebench is no longer measuring what the test was originally written, i.e. the performance of the hardware caches. It looks like the benchmark was originally written ~20 years ago when several things were different including smaller cache sizes, much less sophisticated hardware prefetching and less sophisticated compiler optimization. You can see this because the "read" test is a much lower score than the "read/modify/write" score you've included in the article. It is also indicated by such a wide variation among operating systems on a benchmark supposedly measuring a hardware feature on the same hardware. So I'd put this one in the "synthetic" category since it is small, artificial and not necessarily measuring either a hardware attribute or a real program. I suspect a combination of compilers optimizing away code and hardware prefetching to be distorting these results.

    2. blake2 is a single-threaded benchmark that runs very quickly, less than 0.5 seconds on my hardware which is less powerful than the i9 used here.

    3. The ffmpeg workload file used is likely not well-tuned for a processor with some many cores. The test script passes in a "-threads" option to ffmpeg On my system at least, I get flat performance and then diminishing returns once this parameter gets to "2" and then drops later. Not completely certain all things clearlinux has done (I suspect some tuned versions of software components), but I suspect a contributor of why this shows 2x improvement on clearlinux is that the ffmpeg workload chosen is to some extent "misconfigured" for taking advantage of the hardware.

    4. There is a minor issue with build-linux-kernel that shouldn't affect the overall results. The first iteration of the benchmark it runs ~29,000 processes. In the subsequent iterations only ~26,000 processes are run. I suspect some aspect of a "make clean" isn't fully done and hence iterations after the first one have less work to do. This is at least consistent between what you are measuring, so should come out in the wash. What is curious however, is that the build-php was reported to have slower compile times due to compiler versions, but these didn't carry across to build-linux-kernel.

    --mev

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X