FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-12-2008, 06:45 PM
drago01
 
Default compilation architecture

2008/1/12 Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek <jakub.rusinek@gmail.com>:

> So I can say only one thing: "fedora does something in wrong,
> performance-loss way".

OK here is one synthetic benchmark (non real world) but it should show
you that compiling for a different arch does not automatically makes
things go faster:

benchmark used was "flops.c"
first run:
gcc flops.c -o flops -m32 -O2 -march=i386 -mtune=i686 -DUNIX

FLOPS C Program (Double Precision), V2.0 18 Dec 1992

Module Error RunTime MFLOPS
(usec)
1 -8.1208e-11 0.0171 816.4320
2 1.4704e-15 0.0195 358.7055
3 -3.8213e-15 0.0101 1676.3571
4 6.1151e-14 0.0102 1471.7699
5 -4.4419e-14 0.0184 1574.1210
6 7.7002e-15 0.0172 1683.3209
7 -6.6161e-13 0.0517 232.0156
8 2.2789e-14 0.0187 1606.4346

Iterations = 512000000
NullTime (usec) = 0.0000
MFLOPS(1) = 482.7594
MFLOPS(2) = 542.8299
MFLOPS(3) = 1017.2301
MFLOPS(4) = 1618.1922
----------------------------------------------------------

second run:
gcc flops.c -o flops -m32 -O2 -march=i686 -mtune=i686 -DUNIX

FLOPS C Program (Double Precision), V2.0 18 Dec 1992

Module Error RunTime MFLOPS
(usec)
1 -8.1208e-11 0.0172 812.6376
2 1.4704e-15 0.0196 357.9533
3 -3.8213e-15 0.0101 1677.3263
4 6.1151e-14 0.0102 1471.7699
5 -4.4419e-14 0.0184 1575.9585
6 7.7002e-15 0.0172 1682.3675
7 -6.6161e-13 0.0517 232.1120
8 2.2789e-14 0.0187 1603.4166

Iterations = 512000000
NullTime (usec) = 0.0000
MFLOPS(1) = 481.8683
MFLOPS(2) = 542.8753
MFLOPS(3) = 1016.6906
MFLOPS(4) = 1617.0692
------------------------------------------------------------
even thought not the topic here I have done a x86_64 run too:
gcc flops.c -DUNIX -o flops -O2
./flops

FLOPS C Program (Double Precision), V2.0 18 Dec 1992

Module Error RunTime MFLOPS
(usec)
1 4.0146e-13 0.0144 969.8444
2 -1.4166e-13 0.0163 430.2659
3 4.7184e-14 0.0091 1871.3076
4 -1.2557e-13 0.0083 1808.1842
5 -1.3800e-13 0.0302 960.4358
6 3.2380e-13 0.0158 1834.0442
7 -8.4583e-11 0.0433 276.9485
8 3.4867e-13 0.0303 991.5022

Iterations = 512000000
NullTime (usec) = 0.0000
MFLOPS(1) = 575.0329
MFLOPS(2) = 605.2412
MFLOPS(3) = 964.2780
MFLOPS(4) = 1434.2150
-----------------------------------------------------

Test machine was a Core 2 Duo T7400 running F8.
So as you can see here there is no virtually difference between i386 and i686.
x86_64 is faster in most cases but not always. (and its no way near "3
times faster")

So numbers prove what I (and others) said before ... "it feels faster"
isn't going to convince anyone or change anything.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 07:09 PM
"Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek"
 
Default compilation architecture

2008/1/12, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:18:34 +0100
"Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek" <jakub.rusinek@gmail.com> wrote:

> So I can say only one thing: "fedora does something in wrong,

> performance-loss way".

You could say that, but you'd be wrong.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list

fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Try openSUSE 10.3. You'll see the difference between it and F8.

It's noticeable FASTER!
--
Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
http://liviopl.jogger.pl/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 07:17 PM
"Joachim Frieben"
 
Default compilation architecture

On 1/12/08, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek <jakub.rusinek@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't be silly. Try some > i386 distro, and look at the difference.
About Firefox, I wasn't using Firefox 3 from RPM, but Trunk snapshot from Mozilla's FTP.

*
I'm*fairly pissed off that a 15 year old school boy bullies*fedora-devel list subscribers in the most annoying way*not even mentioning*the flow of unqualified postings clogging my inbox. After taking a 'yellow card' on the fedora-art list,*Jakub seems to be eager to take another one here ..

*
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-art-list/2007-November/msg00225.html
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 08:11 PM
"Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek"
 
Default compilation architecture

2008/1/12, Joachim Frieben <joachim.frieben@googlemail.com>:
On 1/12/08, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek <
jakub.rusinek@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't be silly. Try some > i386 distro, and look at the difference.
About Firefox, I wasn't using Firefox 3 from RPM, but Trunk snapshot from Mozilla's FTP.

*
I'm*fairly pissed off that a 15 year old school boy bullies*fedora-devel list subscribers in the most annoying way*not even mentioning*the flow of unqualified postings clogging my inbox. After taking a 'yellow card' on the fedora-art list,*Jakub seems to be eager to take another one here ..

*
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-art-list/2007-November/msg00225.html


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

So, unsubscribe yourself if you don't like something!

I just want Fedora to be fast, beautiful and yet powerful, but I see you want to come back to C64 epoch...

--
Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
http://liviopl.jogger.pl/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 08:19 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default compilation architecture

On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:09:22PM +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
> Try openSUSE 10.3. You'll see the difference between it and F8.
> It's noticeable FASTER!

Knowing why indeed would be interesting. But I guess it doesn't come
from the i386 versus i586 arch for rpm.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 08:34 PM
"Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek"
 
Default compilation architecture

2008/1/12, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr>:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:09:22PM +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
> Try openSUSE 10.3. You'll see the difference between it and F8.
> It's noticeable FASTER!

Knowing why indeed would be interesting. But I guess it doesn't come

from the i386 versus i586 arch for rpm.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

So where Fedora just... sucks? Don't tell me "everything in Fedora is perfect". Fedora is slow. It's a fact.

--
Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
http://liviopl.jogger.pl/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 08:37 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default compilation architecture

On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:34:38PM +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
> >
>
> So where Fedora just... sucks? Don't tell me "everything in Fedora is
> perfect". Fedora is slow. It's a fact.

If you want to know, search. And avoid coming with ideas, but with
facts.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 08:39 PM
"Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek"
 
Default compilation architecture

2008/1/12, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr>:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:34:38PM +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
> >
>
> So where Fedora just... sucks? Don't tell me "everything in Fedora is
> perfect". Fedora is slow. It's a fact.


If you want to know, search. And avoid coming with ideas, but with
facts.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

You're funny...
--
Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek

http://liviopl.jogger.pl/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 09:01 PM
David Nielsen
 
Default compilation architecture

lÝr, 12 01 2008 kl. 22:39 +0100, skrev Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek:
> 2008/1/12, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr>:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:34:38PM +0100, Jakub 'Livio'
> Rusinek wrote:
> > >
> >
> > So where Fedora just... sucks? Don't tell me "everything in
> Fedora is
> > perfect". Fedora is slow. It's a fact.
>
> If you want to know, search. And avoid coming with ideas, but
> with
> facts.
> You're funny...

If it's a fact, it should be a piece of cake for you to provide evidence
in the form of hard numbers. As easy indeed as it was for drago01
provide numbers to show that you are wrong in your basic assessment (at
least in a some what simplistic test case).

There's the chain of analysis that is useful:

Is Fedora indeed performing slowly compared to distributions released in
the same time frame (Fedora 8 vs. OpenSuSE 10.3 or Ubuntu Gutsy)?

If yes, what is the specific problem area in terms of performance. How
do we test for this to avoid regressions, how do we fix it (if it's
fixable at all). Then we need to retest the system performance after the
change to see that it does not introduce a regression in another area.

You do not jump directly to a conclusion without evidence and then
insult contributors.

With all possible lack of respect,
David Nielsen
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-12-2008, 09:21 PM
Chris Snook
 
Default compilation architecture

Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
I've used openSUSE (i586) with the same configuration and packages
installed and eg. Firefox 3 was started in < 1 sec. I have no benchmarks
but everything runs faster and is more responsible.


Our optimalization does nothing compared to > i386 compilation.


False. On modern processors, with most userspace code, building for i586
generates code with instruction scheduling that is *slower* than i386
instructions tuned for i686. This is why Fedora builds most packages as i386,
tuned for i686.


i586 really only makes sense for things like the kernel, glibc, JVMs, and
multimedia/hpc libraries that use MMX/SSE instructions. In these cases, i686
will usually be even better, though it occasionally makes sense to build with
i586 instructions and tune for i686 if you want to have one package that'll work
acceptably on i586 and work very well on i686.


On a typical desktop system, you'll never notice the difference between i386,
i586, and i686 packages except with high-performance graphics. Your experience
with openSUSE is interesting, but it is not related to compiler optimizations.


-- Chris


2008/1/12, drago01 <drago01@gmail.com <mailto:drago01@gmail.com>>:

2008/1/12 Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek <jakub.rusinek@gmail.com
<mailto:jakub.rusinek@gmail.com>>:
> do we need to support legacy cpu's by i386 compilation?
> i586 would make fedora faster even 3 times.
> difference is noticeable.

.....
where are your benchmarks for the "3 times faster" claim?
the i386 packages are already optimized for newer cpus (mtune vs. march)
where it makes sense to have i686 versions there are some (kernel,
glibc)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com <mailto:fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list>




--
Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
http://liviopl.jogger.pl/



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org