Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 31 Performance Is Still Sliding In The Wrong Direction - Benchmarks Against Ubuntu 19.10 + Clear Linux

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    We're clearly using different meanings for the word stable. You're using it for "stays the same" and I'm using it for "doesn't crash". Using the former definition, Manjaro, Tumbleweed, Gentoo, Funtoo, etc will never be "stable" distributions because they use the latter definition. Different goals means a different form of and meaning to stability.
    Given Manjaro doesn't really develop any software themselves (or even help other projects), if we take the latter definition, Manjaro can't really be too much different from anything else that uses the same versions of software.

    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    What Manjaro offers over Arch is a lot of supported desktop configurations and kernels without needing the user to have to resort to the AUR and go all DIY with an easy-to-use (it could be better) installer, integrated Nvidia proprietary driver installation, graphical upgrade tools for both GTK and QT based desktops, wrappers around Arch tools to make systems management easier (like their wrapper around pacman-mirrors), etc. That's like asking what Ubuntu offers over Debian or Mint over Ubuntu -- noob helpers for the most part.
    A distro shouldn't (or have to) bend over backwards to have to adapt to Nvidia's bad practices. It sets a bad example that vendors can do shitty things or not support Linux properly and distros will bend over backwards and kiss their shoes. Additionally, Plasma and GNOME both have graphical updaters so I don't get how that's unique and it's integrated into everything else.

    Do you not think Arch doesn't ship with those wrappers for a reason? You have yet to give a benefit of Manjaro over Arch other than removing what makes Arch, well Arch.

    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    To comment on both the kernel choices and your response to Linuxxx, some kernel optimization choices have to be made at compile time because there isn't an interface to do that optimization afterwards, real-time and low-latency both fall into that category, and I'd rather the distribution supply and support alternative kernel choices versus expecting an end user to compile a kernel for a specific optimization themselves.

    They also allow for update breathing room and long term stability/safety. Like with Linux 5.3, I was having odd issues up until 5.3.6, having the choices of 5.2.* and 4.19.* was nice to have available since it took a few releases for mainline to stabilize on my system and setup. For someone else, they might be having issues with kernels past 4.17 or 4.12 so Manjaro supporting 4.14.* and 4.9.* LTS kernel releases helps people with odd hardware that quit working or started acting funny for whatever reasons. 4.18, for example, ran like crap on my system 4.19 and 4.17, OTOH, were solid. Manjaro providing what I use as LTS backup kernels is awesome.
    You know what else provides proper stability and safety without keeping people on old kernels? Proper QA testing.
    Last edited by Britoid; 11-01-2019, 04:24 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Anvil View Post
      my bet is SYSTEMD at fault, there packing so much CRAP into that which slows it down,
      I'm curious whether you actually know what systemd does so if I was you I wouldn't bet anything on it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Britoid View Post

        I'm curious whether you actually know what systemd does so if I was you I wouldn't bet anything on it.
        i was being Sarcastic Dickhead. a lot here seem to blame systemd for everything

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Anvil View Post

          i was being Sarcastic Dickhead. a lot here seem to blame systemd for everything

          Comment


          • #35
            Look what system-D did to the poor kitty. Shameful behavior.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post

              I for one am glad that Canonical/Ubuntu offer me the choice of a "lowlatency" kernel. (Which no other distro does, BTW!)

              Keeps my system smooth & respnsive under any load condition; especially gaming never felt any better!
              If what you want is the word "low latency" I agree with you, but you should know that some distributions like openSUSE have a default low latency kernel.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Charlie68 View Post

                If what you want is the word "low latency" I agree with you, but you should know that some distributions like openSUSE have a default low latency kernel.
                LOL!

                See, this is what happens when distros make drastic changes without telling anyone!

                You know, I used to be an openSUSE Tumbleweed user myself; until Linux kernel 5.0, that is.
                Because starting with that kernel, some genius at SuSE decided it would be a good idea to COMPLETELY disable any preemption whatsoever! Making the kernel anything but 'low-latency'!

                Thankfully, I quickly noticed the increased latency times and checked my kernel with "uname -a"; there it was (or rather not): no PREEMPT! [Which definitely was there for kernel 4.20, mind you!]

                Therefore, Canonical is the only major player with an enterprise distro in the Linux space that officially also supports a "lowlatency" optimized kernel! (And for that, I salute them!)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Blame Fedora's insane super-secure compilation flags:

                  CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection'

                  LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld'

                  I rather lose a few miliseconds in some benchmarks than get pwned left and right. Remember Fedora is downstream of a SRSBSNSS corporate distro for SRSBSNSS applications and their choice of compiler flags will obviously reflect that.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post

                    LOL!

                    See, this is what happens when distros make drastic changes without telling anyone!

                    You know, I used to be an openSUSE Tumbleweed user myself; until Linux kernel 5.0, that is.
                    Because starting with that kernel, some genius at SuSE decided it would be a good idea to COMPLETELY disable any preemption whatsoever! Making the kernel anything but 'low-latency'!

                    Thankfully, I quickly noticed the increased latency times and checked my kernel with "uname -a"; there it was (or rather not): no PREEMPT! [Which definitely was there for kernel 4.20, mind you!]

                    Therefore, Canonical is the only major player with an enterprise distro in the Linux space that officially also supports a "lowlatency" optimized kernel! (And for that, I salute them!)
                    I was referring to Leap, I don't know if tumbleweed uses the same kernel configuration, but if you say that from kernel 5 they modified it, there will be some reason that I don't know, but on Leap it's low latency.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I don't think the test is decisive!
                      • FileSystem: xfs, ext4, btrfs?
                      • I/O schedulers?
                      • Kernel settings?
                      Desktop user by: Fedora 31 (SSD + XFS + BFQ) is the fastest.
                      ClearLinux package rather incomplete.
                      Ubuntu use old (a little outdated) schedulers and filesystem.

                      Ubuntu not recommend for SSD+BFQ.
                      Fedora use BFQ and BFQ developers recommend for SSD+BFQ.

                      it would be worth comparing Ubuntu Server, Fedora Server and ClearLinux Server OS.
                      Sry: my english is bad
                      ‚Äč

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X