Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

    Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

    Last week we published Ubuntu 7.04 to 8.10 benchmarks from a Lenovo ThinkPad T60 and had found Ubuntu's performance degraded peculiarly over the past year and a half. We then published Fedora 7 to 10 benchmarks covering the same time-frame and from the same exact Intel notebook computer, but the newer releases of Fedora were only marginally slower in a few tests. In our performance exploration of Ubuntu we now have additional tests to publish this morning. This time around we're switching out the hardware we're testing on to Intel's newer Core 2 series and we're comparing the performance of the x86 and x86_64 editions of Ubuntu 8.10 against Apple's Mac OS X 10.5.5 operating system.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13080

  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    kraftman, those are developer papers, not marketing papers. If you don't trust those then you shouldn't read 99.9% of technical info out there as they all originate and derived from technical papers from the original documentation. If you would read the article you would see where your error is. OS X 10.5 is 100% SUSv3 and 1003.1 compliant.

    And again, HFS+ can do case sensitive, that's not a problem, the 3rd party developers on the other hand is where the issue is. Companies like Adobe are painfully slow to adopt.
    Alright. Thanks for explanation

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    kraftman, those are developer papers, not marketing papers. If you don't trust those then you shouldn't read 99.9% of technical info out there as they all originate and derived from technical papers from the original documentation. If you would read the article you would see where your error is. OS X 10.5 is 100% SUSv3 and 1003.1 compliant.

    And again, HFS+ can do case sensitive, that's not a problem, the 3rd party developers on the other hand is where the issue is. Companies like Adobe are painfully slow to adopt.
    Last edited by deanjo; 11-25-2008, 05:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Because HFS+ supports POSIX and ACL's is a bad thing? You really might want to read http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html for detailed information on HFS+ You will see that HFS+ has evolved quite readily over the revisions.
    It's very good thing if it is native. I don't trust Apples talk, because they put marketing bullshit everywhere. They even delete post on their forum - funny Blue Screen of Death incident in Leopard .

    You have the option of using case sensitive if you want. Unfortunately POS companies like Adobe CS3 live in the stone ages and can't install and run on anything but a case insensitive drive.
    I heard about problems with CS3, but maybe just insensitive drives are from stone age?

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post

    Because EXT3 don't emulate POSIX like HFS+.

    EDIT:

    And HFS+ is case insensitive. I couldn't believe.
    Because HFS+ supports POSIX and ACL's is a bad thing? You really might want to read http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html for detailed information on HFS+ You will see that HFS+ has evolved quite readily over the revisions.

    You have the option of using case sensitive if you want. Unfortunately POS companies like Adobe CS3 live in the stone ages and can't install and run on anything but a case insensitive drive.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Yes, it all depends on alot of factors. A properly tuned XFS filesystem though a majority of the time outperform ext3 quite readily. A good guide to being tuning can be found here:

    http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435
    Thanks, I have to try XFS.

    You keep saying that ext3 is superior to HFS+ but you still have not said why.
    Because EXT3 don't emulate POSIX like HFS+.

    EDIT:

    And HFS+ is case insensitive. I couldn't believe.

    Also without knowing the the environment and switches used for the bonnie++ benchmark, those results have to be taken with a grain of salt.
    What matters in link that I posted is only size of used file. You're completely right.
    Last edited by kraftman; 11-25-2008, 12:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, but maybe that's why those tricks aren't obsolete In some benchmarks EXT3 outperforms XFS. And in comparison to that what Leopard has as its file system EXT3 is superior.
    Yes, it all depends on alot of factors. A properly tuned XFS filesystem though a majority of the time outperform ext3 quite readily. A good guide to being tuning can be found here:

    http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435

    You keep saying that ext3 is superior to HFS+ but you still have not said why. On what grounds are you basing this? Also without knowing the the environment and switches used for the bonnie++ benchmark, those results have to be taken with a grain of salt. We do not know for example on those results:

    Was the partitions on the same area of the area of the drive? Location of the partition can greatly vary results.
    What block sizes were used on the partition?
    If it was a raid, what type of raid? Chunk size? What stripe size was used? If raid 5 what parity algorithm was used?
    Is barriers being used?
    etc.
    All these items can cause a system's I/O results to vary greatly.
    Last edited by deanjo; 11-24-2008, 07:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Heh, did you take a look at the date on that article? Ext3 is not known for it's speed nowdays. Ars technica did a good breakdown of the filesystems out there a while back.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...-systems.ars/1

    There is also a good debian paper.

    http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

    To quote the ars article:
    Yes, but maybe that's why those tricks aren't obsolete In some benchmarks EXT3 outperforms XFS. And in comparison to that what Leopard has as its file system EXT3 is superior.

    Here are some tests:
    http://marc.info/?t=104401945100002&r=1&w=2

    EDIT:

    Probably that is correct use of bonnie++ benchmark:

    http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/benchmark/allfs.html
    Last edited by kraftman; 11-24-2008, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    So, that's probably why blobs bypass MUCH of X :> You asked me before why I think so.

    I wonder what journaling options were used during the tests. It seems that it matters a lot:

    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...ary/l-fs8.html
    Heh, did you take a look at the date on that article? Ext3 is not known for it's speed nowdays. Ars technica did a good breakdown of the filesystems out there a while back.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...-systems.ars/1

    There is also a good debian paper.

    http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

    To quote the ars article:

    Despite valiant attempts to establish ReiserFS as a new standard, and the measurable superiority of systems like XFS, most Linux users are still using ext3. ext3 is not new. It's not super fast. It's not sexy. It won't cook your dinner. But it is tried and true, and for many people, that is more important.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    No the blobs do not use mesa.
    So, that's probably why blobs bypass MUCH of X :> You asked me before why I think so.

    I wonder what journaling options were used during the tests. It seems that it matters a lot:

    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...ary/l-fs8.html

    Theoretically, data=journal mode is the slowest journaling mode of all, since data gets written to disk twice rather than once. However, it turns out that in certain situations, data=journal mode can be blazingly fast.
    Somehow, ext3's data=journal mode is incredibly well-suited to situations where data needs to be read from and written to disk at the same time.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X