Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power & Memory Usage Of GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce

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

  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
    But the cache may share some physical memory pages with executables and libraries. Did you know about that?

    So, when you do (TOTAL_USED_MEMORY - MEMORY_USED_BY_CACHE) you might in fact be subtracting away memory belonging to executables and libraries.
    So let's look at the source code and see what files are loaded into RAM.

    Then compile Gnome and KDE under the same conditions with the same settings and compare the sizes of the loaded binary files.

    Then compare them in percentages to each other (because each different compile may differ in size of the binairies...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    That'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.
    OK.

    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    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.
    No, it is not clear to me. I agree it is maybe clear to yourself, but if you publish it subjective clarity is not sufficient.

    "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 Post
    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.
    But the cache may share some physical memory pages with executables and libraries. Did you know about that?

    So, when you do (TOTAL_USED_MEMORY - MEMORY_USED_BY_CACHE) you might in fact be subtracting away memory belonging to executables and libraries.

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
    What is your IQ, my dear?
    I'm sorry, but that rhetorical question, in itself, is extremely stupid and says more about you than about BlackStar...

    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... <_<'

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    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.
    I probably found about the issue before he did. Maybe you just ignored what I wrote about htop in one of my posts.

    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    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).
    What is your IQ, my dear? Maybe you don't know how division works. You know, the mathematical operation used in computing percentages. A citation from the Phoronix article to refresh your memory (bold typeface added):

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    KDE sucks. There, I said it.

    Just kidding.
    You trolling is infuriating, but your humor is awesome... Have to give you that!

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
    Interestingly, 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.
    That'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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    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.
    Maybe next time the h-online will be more careful and won't blindly link to such article which gives wrong assumptions. I wonder what will be the title of the new comparison - "Power & memory usage of GNOME, KDE, LXDE & Xfce - rerun"? ;>

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    The 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)
    Interestingly, 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.

    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Who is the supreme ruler here ?

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    Completely wrong. (I was the primary author, and coined the concept - so this is one of the times that I can actually use "completely".
    OK.

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    The point is that the benchmarks are just what they are. Benchmarks.
    The numbers are just what they are, numbers.
    I don't dispute that. I don't dispute repeatability of those results.

    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 Post
    I 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.
    The issue is not whether it is repeatable.

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    The 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.
    The issue is not whether it is repeatable.

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    Feel free to standup and do the following
    Now, let's see...

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    1) Reproduce the test and the results
    I cannot. Even if I were to reproduce the test, I have a different concept of what comprises "memory consumption of a desktop environment". So my results would be different. But they sure would be repeatable.

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    2) Make suggestions for improvements or clarifications
    I did.

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    3) Present a similar set of results with the modified methodology.
    I did that already in my first post. Many people have done so as well. Seems you completely ignore that.

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    But I don't think I have seen anyone get past 1). No one has voting rights for 2 or 3 unless you do 1.
    Actually, many people here do have those voting rights - but you are going to completely ignore them because their results do not fit into your little nice world where everything works according to your rules.


    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    Quotes are just that.
    ... or maybe they aren't

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    Out of context they can be used anyway.
    ... or maybe they should not be used like that

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    Fortuntately, with digging the context can be found for all the quotes.
    ... now we are all saved

    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    Regards,

    Matthew

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X