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

  • NotMine999
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    Has there been any research whether Fedora's compilation flags actually help reduce the number of vulnerabilities? Not a single one to my knowledge which means your comment lacks any ground.
    Just because you can't find any research (and probably because you don't want to find it) doesn't mean it hasn't been done or is being done now.

    Hint: You can never prove a negative.

    Leave a comment:


  • idanka
    replied
    New install Ubuntu19.10 and Fedora31 default settings.
    Default kernel / filsesystem and settings!

    Fedora Wins!
    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu...aseline=529846

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by angrypie View Post

    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.
    Has there been any research whether Fedora's compilation flags actually help reduce the number of vulnerabilities? Not a single one to my knowledge which means your comment lacks any ground.

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post

    It's simply stunning/amazing just how bad Fedora really performs compared to Ubuntu...
    Something is very very wrong here. The results shouldn't differ that much if at all, since they only depend on kernel optimizations (and even then those optimizations can sway the results by at most few percents).

    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxxx
    replied
    Originally posted by idanka View Post
    Sorry test shows ...
    the above test data is sure to be true
    simple test confirms

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu...aseline=514712
    It's simply stunning/amazing just how bad Fedora really performs compared to Ubuntu...

    Leave a comment:


  • idanka
    replied
    Sorry test shows ...
    the above test data is sure to be true
    simple test confirms

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu...aseline=514712

    Leave a comment:


  • idanka
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie68
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • angrypie
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxxx
    replied
    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!)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X