Originally posted by Kano
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Power & Memory Usage Of GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce
Collapse
X
-
Who is the supreme ruler here ?
Originally posted by mtippett View PostCompletely wrong. (I was the primary author, and coined the concept - so this is one of the times that I can actually use "completely".
Originally posted by mtippett View PostThe point is that the benchmarks are just what they are. Benchmarks.
The numbers are just what they are, numbers.
I do dispute the following: that those numbers are good representations of what is described in the Phoronix article, i.e. of the concept "memory consumption of a desktop environment". The Phoronix article was about memory consumption of DEs, but how come that those numbers entail memory consumption of for example multiple instances of Bash processes - what has Bash to do with KDE/Gnome/etc? Bash is not a part of any of those DEs.
Or: The Phoronix numbers about the memory consumption of KDE/Gnome/etc (most likely) include memory consumption of the syslog daemon. Why? What has syslog to do with those DEs? My understanding is that "syslog" is a distinct component of the OS, disjoint and independent from the components "KDE", "Gnome", etc.
Or: what has one-time-usage data present in the disk cache to do with using KDE/Gnome/etc?
That is the primary problem, not whether those measurements are repeatable.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostI believe that within this thread *NOONE* has gone through and reproduced *EXACTLY* what Michael did for the article. mugginz came close, and guess what, he was in a similar order.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostThe majority of this thread is about people arguing their side of the coin, or saying that their figures don't match up. As mentioned in the presentation, and mentioned elsewhere.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostFeel free to standup and do the following
Originally posted by mtippett View Post1) Reproduce the test and the results
Originally posted by mtippett View Post2) Make suggestions for improvements or clarifications
Originally posted by mtippett View Post3) Present a similar set of results with the modified methodology.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostBut I don't think I have seen anyone get past 1). No one has voting rights for 2 or 3 unless you do 1.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostQuotes are just that.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostOut of context they can be used anyway.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostFortuntately, with digging the context can be found for all the quotes.
Originally posted by mtippett View PostRegards,
Matthew
Comment
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostThe contents of the benchmark are as follows:- Autostart on boot recording RAM usage once every second for 20 seconds.
- Launch Konsole and record RAM usage once every second for 20 seconds.
- Quit Konsole via dbus and record RAM once usage every second for 20 seconds.
- Launch Dragon Player with ogg theora video and record RAM usage once every second for 20 seconds.
(Dragon Player is the default video playback program for Kubuntu 9.10) - Quit Dragon Player via dbus control and record RAM usage every second for once 20 seconds.
- Reboot the machine.
Interestingly the machine never saw more than 267M used if you dont include the first run after installation or updates (Run 1 for both Charts)
Ok ... Phoronix published the method by publishing the source code of PTS.
Once this problem is solved when (if) you disclose the measurement method, then we can start talking - about whether those numbers are accurate representations of the concept "memory consumption of a desktop environment".
Comment
-
Can we please get over it?
KDE sucks. There, I said it.
Just kidding.
<< ⚛ >>, you are beating a dead horse here, Kano found out the root of the issue and submitted a fix. The PTS tests should be rerun from scratch.
That said, you seem to miss the fact that syslog and similar processes add a constant amount of overhead that affects all measurements. They don't skew results one way or another when comparing DEs (as was done here).
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlackStar View Post<< ⚛ >>, you are beating a dead horse here, Kano found out the root of the issue and submitted a fix. The PTS tests should be rerun from scratch.
Comment
-
Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View PostInterestingly, you did a similar mistake to what Phoronix did: forgetting to explicitly mention the exact method used to measure memory consumption. Since I do not know how you did the measurement, it is impossible for me to fully understand what you actually measured.
The post I made that you reference was made at about 10 o'clock in the morning, having been up since the morning before (more than 24hrs). I got a bee in my bonnet late last night and decided to do some formal tests in order to report the results on my blog firstly, and then report them here as well.
I thought that before I had the full suite of numbers comparing Kubuntu 9.10 (KDE), Kubuntu 10.04 (KDE) and Ubuntu 10.04 (Gnome), I would reported some preliminary findings. I might add that the info accompanying the graphs is fairly clear though. And that it measured used memory. That is, not used memory+cache+buffers and is consistent with an earlier post I made in which I stated what I believe was the correct metric to report when stating that your benches represent used memory.
The used memory info is available from various places in Linux, and the one I chose was what is reported by free. To be completely clear thats the value minus buffers and cache.
Comment
-
Indeed
Originally posted by BlackStar View Post<< ⚛ >>, you are beating a dead horse here, Kano found out the root of the issue and submitted a fix. The PTS tests should be rerun from scratch.
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostThat said, you seem to miss the fact that syslog and similar processes add a constant amount of overhead that affects all measurements. They don't skew results one way or another when comparing DEs (as was done here).
Eating much more memory than the lightweight Xfce/LXDE desktops was KDE 4.4.1 that ended up leading to 67% greater memory consumption than LXDE. GNOME 2.29.1 had a 24% smaller memory footprint than KDE 4.4.1.
Comment
-
Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View PostWhat is your IQ, my dear?
IQ is the avarage of linear measured capability of a human brain to execute tasks. So that in itself says nothing.
Furthermore inteligence, intelect and insight are three completely seperate things.
I will not for a second stop listening to BlackStar (ignoring his trolling ofcourse ) if his IQ was to be even average.
Every monkey, given the right education, can be a George Orwell. If someone would be extremely good at language, but has to learn a mathemathical subject for over 2 weeks and practice the questions in order to get an avarage score, one could beat a mathemathical genius in IQ scores measured today.
Please note that education is linked to IQ in every way...
True smartasses will look unbiased at anything and then form their own conclusions about that something.
IQ rating is for idiots that want to look smart while they are far from being so...
Okey next... <_<'
Comment
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostThat's possibly a little unfair.
The post I made that you reference was made at about 10 o'clock in the morning, having been up since the morning before (more than 24hrs). I got a bee in my bonnet late last night and decided to do some formal tests in order to report the results on my blog firstly, and then report them here as well.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostI thought that before I had the full suite of numbers comparing Kubuntu 9.10 (KDE), Kubuntu 10.04 (KDE) and Ubuntu 10.04 (Gnome), I would reported some preliminary findings. I might add that the info accompanying the graphs is fairly clear though. And that it measured used memory. That is, not used memory+cache+buffers and is consistent with an earlier post I made in which I stated what I believe was the correct metric to report when stating that your benches represent used memory.
"Used memory" is a very broad term. Notice there is no subject there: it is unclear who or what exactly uses that memory. Neither you, nor Phoronix, bothers to explain what is actually being measured.
Originally posted by mugginz View PostThe used memory info is available from various places in Linux, and the one I chose was what is reported by free. To be completely clear thats the value minus buffers and cache.
So, when you do (TOTAL_USED_MEMORY - MEMORY_USED_BY_CACHE) you might in fact be subtracting away memory belonging to executables and libraries.
Comment
Comment