OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva Benchmarks

[frantaylor]

already done:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_9_11_perf&num=2

Almost. The problem is that even the releases are moving targets. New kernels come out all the time, and I wonder how the original kernel compares with the latest one.

Sometimes a bad benchmark result is due to a bug, and bugs sometimes get fixed. Sometimes a good benchmark result is all for naught, if an update to fix a security hole has the side effect of reducing throughput or adding delay.

Also, take a look at the apache benchmarks in the benchmark article you linked to. Rawhide's apache performance stinks there, too.

[energyman]

and some filesystems are optimized for benchmarks (ext3/4) and some for data safety. So what?

[deanjo]

BTW, small typo in the article Michael. It's openSUSE not openSuSE. I know, old habits die hard.

[shikamaru]

Please explain the Dbench result.

160MB/sec for Mandriva with an old WD1600JS-00M (7200RPM)?

and why it wasn't tested with ext4 filesystem too

[deanjo]

and why it wasn't tested with ext4 filesystem too

From the article:

All four distributions were left with their stock settings to represent an "out of the box" experience across all of them.

Mandriva Cooker defaults to EXT3.

[sylware]

Gentoo?

Indeed where is it?
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86-64" gcc 4.4.x(-O42) vanilla-sources-2.6.3x.x powa

From there I have an idea: use the instrumentation frameworks to benchmark finer. I'm thinking about the latency framework.

[energyman]

sylware - your Accep_Keywords are bogus.

[sandeen]

and the other ones do not?

rawhide lost badly against the other 'testing' versions, that should give you something to think about.

Unless you compare at least the debug options turned on in each, your statement doesn't mean much. Maybe they are similar, maybe not. But without a little useful analysis we don't know.

[energyman]

remember the test were different fedora versions were compared? rawhide wasn't slower than the others. In fact, in a lot of tests several 'real' fedora releases lost badly.

If rawhide is a 'faster' release - and still sucks compared to the other distributions than you must come to the conclusion that Fedora is dead slow.