A Five-Way Linux Distribution Comparison In 2010

[xir_]

But yea, the idea of Linux Olympics is rather interesting indeed

I messaged Michael with the idea, hopefully he will respond.

[Michael]

I messaged Michael with the idea, hopefully he will respond.

Actually it's an idea that Matthew Tippett and I had talked about a few months before, but there didn't seem to be too much community interest. I will think about it this weekend to see what could be done.

[xir_]

Actually it's an idea that Matthew Tippett and I had talked about a few months before, but there didn't seem to be too much community interest. I will think about it this weekend to see what could be done.

great minds and all that.

[sundown]

Indeed. I can try x264 tonight, I have an Arch install on a 64-bit machine (core i7 860), a Mandriva cooker x86_64 (both kernels have not the same schedulers) and a livecd of Suse 64 bits.

So? How is it going?

[zeb_]

So? How is it going?

I just realised the test under Mandriva cooker and Arch. Kernel is 2.6.34, my CPU is a i7 860, both are 64-bit environment.

Mandriva: Average: 71.40 Frames Per Second
Archlinux: Average: 72.74 Frames Per Second

I have not tested Suse yet, but I see no significant difference between Mandriva cooker (development, now in freeze for the 2010.1 version) and Arch, although their schedulers are different (charge on each core is different on both OSes, as shown by gkrellm). Note that the kernel on my Arch machine is a 2.6.34 (the current one) as opposed to the 2.6.33 from the Phoronix test. I don't know if that would be the explanation.

[zeb_]

Was there a known regression in 2.6.33 ? at least, I know that for 2.6.34, the CFQ scheduler was improved.
What Phoronix should do is to update Arch to the latest version and see if the regression disappears. That are things like that that would transform a poor article into something interesting: instead of creating a flame war, they could be informative and useful for ALL users and distros (like they did when dissecting the ext4 regressions in the kernel)..

[LinuxID10T]

I just realised the test under Mandriva cooker and Arch. Kernel is 2.6.34, my CPU is a i7 860, both are 64-bit environment.

Mandriva: Average: 71.40 Frames Per Second
Archlinux: Average: 72.74 Frames Per Second

I have not tested Suse yet, but I see no significant difference between Mandriva cooker (development, now in freeze for the 2010.1 version) and Arch, although their schedulers are different (charge on each core is different on both OSes, as shown by gkrellm). Note that the kernel on my Arch machine is a 2.6.34 (the current one) as opposed to the 2.6.33 from the Phoronix test. I don't know if that would be the explanation.

Due to margin of error, I don't think your results really count to call anything a regression.

[zeb_]

@LinuxID10T: Indeed, but I was not talking about the result between Mandriva and Arch, but in the Phoonix test itself, wheredifferencs are significat.
My results show that latest Arch is not worse than Mandriva, and Phoronix editors should update their article with some explanation/exploration, otherwise that is just sensationalism.

[zeb_]

Due to margin of error, I don't think your results really count to call anything a regression.

Indeed, but I was not talking about the result between Mandriva and Arch, but in the Phoonix test itself, where differencs are significant.

My results show that latest Arch is not worse than Mandriva, and Phoronix editors should update their article with some explanation/exploration, otherwise that is just sensationalism.

[zeb_]

Due to margin of error, I don't think your results really count to call anything a regression.

Indeed, but I was not talking about the result between Mandriva and Arch, but in the Phoonix test itself, where differencs are significant.

My results show that latest Arch is not worse than Mandriva, and Phoronix editors should update their article with some explanation/exploration, otherwise that is just sensationalism.