Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva Performance Compared
Collapse
X
-
wow. Fedora, Ubuntu, and something that isn't OpenSolaris? I'm impressed. And happy. I cut my Linux teeth on Mandrake, and it's still my Plan B for desktop usage.
-
Thanks for the benchmarks Michael..
As you said, what matters more is what features you require from a distro
I use Mandriva, and I am glad with it.
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks for a fantastic job Michael. Just a little nitpick, please make clear whether OS and/or binaries are 64-bit.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Rhettigan View PostI think what is most interesting to me in these results is the difference in compilation times, especially for the kernel. I guess, in that case, one could argue that there is simply more source to compile for 2.6.25 than for 2.6.24, or that Fedora 9's gcc is slower than Ubuntu 8.04's.
Leave a comment:
-
That's a pretty old post. Here are a couple of benchmarks with barrier enabled. Top one is a couple of old Maxtor 6L250S0 250 Gig drives with barriers enabled, the one below are Seagate 7200.11 500 Gig drives. Both are running Raid 0 on a dmraid setup.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostVery doubtful that my hardware does not support barrier. They are seagate 7200.11 series drives and the same thing is observed on enterprise servers that are using ES.2 series drives that I run @ work.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Luis View PostXFS has barrier on by default (unlike ext3), but it's really strange that it has so little effect for you. Maybe your hardware doesn't support it and disables it? This is not a rare case and you should see some message about it (probably in dmesg?).
On I/O intensive tasks, the performance difference should be noticeable (it's a trade off for increased safety, otherwise everyone would enable them). A simple "tar -xjf linux-2.6.25.4.tar.bz2" should reveal the difference when mounting with default vs. using option "nobarrier" (for XFS) in /etc/fstab.
Anyone who wants to test with ext3, the option is "barrier=0" (disable) or "barrier=1" (enable).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by deanjo View Postbarrier has little to no effect in my experience on XFS < 1%
On I/O intensive tasks, the performance difference should be noticeable (it's a trade off for increased safety, otherwise everyone would enable them). A simple "tar -xjf linux-2.6.25.4.tar.bz2" should reveal the difference when mounting with default vs. using option "nobarrier" (for XFS) in /etc/fstab.
Anyone who wants to test with ext3, the option is "barrier=0" (disable) or "barrier=1" (enable).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Luis View PostWell, since these benchmarks are mostly about the hardware and the kernel, it's not a big surprise that all perform quite similarly.
It's a pity that openSUSE is not on the test, because it's the only one that enables barriers on the filesystem by default and it would be nice to measure their cost, which in I/O bound tests can be up to 30% in my experience. (There was a recent thread on lkml to enable them by default in ext3, but Andrew Morton was opposing because of these performance cost. I'm not sure how it all ended up, but I saw a commit a couple of days ago to enable them by default in ext4, so in the long run that would be the default anyway).
noatime - last access time is not recorded (file/dir)
biosize - sets the default I/O size
logbufs - specifies in-memory log buffers
logbsize - size of the buffer
Changing them in fstab on my systems dropped my sqlite tests from 59 seconds to < 2 seconds and throughput jumped by 13 MB/s
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: