Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

macOS 10.12 Sierra vs. Ubuntu 16.04 Linux Benchmarking

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by SaucyJack View Post

    The only benchmarks apple excelled in were the couple that Clang are ahead of GCC on. Which means it's not "Apple" that performed well on those benchmarks.
    Well, that and PostgreSQL and SQLite, that would certainly be worth looking into.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by caligula View Post
      The filesystem / sql transaction benchmarks are suspicious. I suspect that Apple's system doesn't sync in the same way.

      Also would be nice to compare Clear Linux or some other optimized Linux against macOS. The people who are interested in performance don't use Ubuntu.
      Yeah, that would explain it. If the harddisk write-cache isn't hard-flushed on every commit that would give a very substantial speed improvement, at the expense of potential loss of commited transaction on sudden power downs.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by carewolf View Post
        Well, that and PostgreSQL and SQLite, that would certainly be worth looking into.
        Already talked about above, same issue of linux's ntfs driver (on FUSE), crappy fsync implementation (or they did it on purpose to try to workaround the fact that HFS+ sucks) so you are seeing ram-cached disk activity, which is of course faster than true disk activity.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by carewolf View Post

          Yeah. I never understood how OS X manages to suck as much as it does. It is amazingly slow and crappy.
          What's worse it's even unusably slow in VirtualBox.

          Comment


          • #45
            I switched to OSX about 8 years ago or so and the one overriding problem it's always had is that HFS+ is f**king horrible and that shows through in a lot of the test results. And [insert favorite deity here] help you if the allocation bitmap gets corrupted. It's like that SouthPark bit where everyone invests their money, the banker pauses and then says "and it's gone". There was a glimmer of hope when they were considering ZFS but licensing concerns sank that. Supposedly APFS is the next great hope but even it's missing some features that other filesystems have had for a while now.

            As for the SQLite and PostgreSQL performance, OSX (and iOS) use SQLite for a lot of core system functionality. Likewise, many of the OSX "Server" features use PostgreSQL. I would not be at all surprised if there are optimizations for both actually baked into the os, but I have nothing to back that up.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by thesandbender View Post
              As for the SQLite and PostgreSQL performance, OSX (and iOS) use SQLite for a lot of core system functionality. Likewise, many of the OSX "Server" features use PostgreSQL. I would not be at all surprised if there are optimizations for both actually baked into the os, but I have nothing to back that up.
              No, I'm afraid the filesystem isn't as safe as linux filesystems and shows up as better performance when in reality your data is not handled as safely.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by caligula View Post
                No, I'm afraid the filesystem isn't as safe as linux filesystems and shows up as better performance when in reality your data is not handled as safely.
                That is a major part of it, yes. Hence my entire first paragraph mentioning that HFS+ is horrible. SQLite actually behaves differently because of it. On OSX machines it uses fsync(), on linux it tries to use osFcntl with F_FULLSYNC first and fails back to fsync() if there's an issue. To do an apples to apples (cough) comparison you'd need to either compile with SQLITE_NO_SYNC or edit full_sync() to always call fsync() for linux. There are some workarounds for nfsd locking issues as well.

                You'll also need to use SQLITE_WITHOUT_ZONEMALLOC to disable zone malloc's on OSX. Used properly zones can offer a little performance advantage, but not anything major.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post

                  What's worse it's even unusably slow in VirtualBox.
                  A colleague of mine discovered it was faster to compile on Linux running inside a virtual machine on OS X, than on OS X directly. About twice as fast, and that is still going through the same filesystem in the end. I don't even know how that is possible, just that OS X really sucks...

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Pawlerson is a troll, but yes the filesystem does suck. And because it writes back the data differently than doing it directly on os x. Apfs looks good so far I don't have a fast enough drive to do a serious benchmark of it.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Cerberus View Post
                      I like it how Apple likes to advertise OSX as the most advanced OS in the world yet gets regularly trashed by Linux on their own hardware, but that is marketing and target audience believes it.
                      You're equating "advanced" with "fastest". That's a very silly mistake.
                      There are multiple dimensions of "advanced".
                      On many of them Apple does better (security, energy, ease of writing drivers).
                      On some of Linux does better (scaling to many cores) but in a way that is very difficult to code, and unlikely to be the direction Apple takes.
                      On some of them ("smoothness and interactivity") we don't have the benchmarks to prove the point definitively, but all anecdotes suggest that Apple does better on equivalent hardware.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X