Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 7.04 to 8.10 Benchmarks: Is Ubuntu Getting Slower?

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

  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by adrianveidt View Post
    That's a wicked thought. The CFS was created to improve desktop performance, particularly for things like 3d games. Maybe Con Kolivas was right all along...
    He was, and politics got in the way again, enough for him to quit.

    Leave a comment:


  • adrianveidt
    replied
    Originally posted by thacrazze View Post
    The cause for the bad performance is the CFS (Completly Fair Scheduler), I think. It's standard since 2.6.23/24.

    World of Warcraft on Wine lags terrible and freezes every some seconds since the introducing of CFS.

    I hope OpenSolaris supports my hardware completly soon, so that I can change to this OS.
    That's a wicked thought. The CFS was created to improve desktop performance, particularly for things like 3d games. Maybe Con Kolivas was right all along...

    Michael, what you should try to do is boot a Feisty kernel in Intrepid and then benchmark that (if possible).

    Leave a comment:


  • supercompman
    replied
    I was wondering if Tracker was enabled or disabled in the later versions of Ubuntu. One thing I noticed right away in Ubuntu 7.10 when I started compiling larger projects is that there was a huge performance hit taken with Tracker enabled. I would download a tarball, decompress it, and tracker would index all of these new text files... not good, especially for a large project. Then, as I was compiling, Tracker would notice these new files created during compilation and start indexing them as well. Disabling Tracker completely helped general performance quite a bit as well and it's one of the first things I do when I perform a fresh install of Ubuntu.

    When it comes to comments on the completely fair scheduler, there may be a small performance hit taken, but the general user experience is much more smooth on the desktop. If there is a single application that runs a muck, it's not going to make your desktop completely unusable to the point of stopping the user from killing the wild process. For me, that's a trade off I can accept.

    For the graphics tests (minus the games tests), I would be interested to see what the performance is like if we take the proprietary ATI drivers out of the mix. I realize that many (if not most) users will be using the proprietary drivers, but I'm curious to see if some of these slow downs have been introduced by ATI.

    I'm not denying for one second that there is a problem here (it seems pretty apparent there's a problem with the kernel, X, GTK, or some combination of those), but these are just a few questions and opinions about what the causes might be.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssam
    replied
    Originally posted by trooper09 View Post
    Since there is now a complete shift to dual cores as a standard, and Intel Core Duo is not really dual cores, I wonder how the tests would perform under that environment.
    intel's naming scheme is confusing

    core solo = 32bit single core
    core duo = 32bit dual core
    core 2 solo = 64 bit single core
    core 2 duo = 64 bit dual core
    core 2 quad = 64 bit quad core
    core 2 extreme = 64 bit dual/quad

    the dual cores share cache (but that is a good thing (i think. lets you do openMP))

    The quads are actually two bits of silicon in one enclosure.

    there is far too much information on wikipedia :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • trooper09
    replied
    ...

    Since there is now a complete shift to dual cores as a standard, and Intel Core Duo is not really dual cores, I wonder how the tests would perform under that environment.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssam
    replied
    Evgeniy Polyakov has made some posts on kernel performance. maybe a similar cause.
    http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/blog//devel/other

    Leave a comment:


  • thacrazze
    replied
    The cause for the bad performance is the CFS (Completly Fair Scheduler), I think. It's standard since 2.6.23/24.

    World of Warcraft on Wine lags terrible and freezes every some seconds since the introducing of CFS.

    I hope OpenSolaris supports my hardware completly soon, so that I can change to this OS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vadi
    replied
    Eh, it didn't look like such a huge loss to me overall :-/

    Leave a comment:


  • jamei
    replied
    It might be possible to locate these regressions by running a newer backported kernel on ubuntu 7.04 (or possibly run the older 2.6.20 kernel with 8.10).

    This could isolate the issue to the kernel, or otherwise to another component, such as GCC. From there, it should be possible to further bisect the kernel to find the source of these performance regressions.

    Keep up the excellent work!

    Leave a comment:


  • Detructor
    replied
    that is no problem of canonical...it's a problem that affects the kernels...since 2.24 the kernels are getting slower and slower...I've heared that from sidux users, from fedora users and from Debian users...they are all saying the same: since 2.24 they are loosing frames in first-person-shooter like ET:QW and UT2k4

    so, maybe someone should talk to the kernel hackers and say them, that a sleep function after each function is NOT necessary...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X