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 User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-07-2011, 11:48 AM
JB
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> writes:

> ...

Could some basic test plan (or suite) for disk performance be included in QA
release criteria, so that current and historical same-test (for regression
detection) data be available ?
It needs not be fancy, just to alert in case of bad things coming (we are
talking about out-of-the-box experience).

JB





--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 06-07-2011, 11:53 AM
Frank Murphy
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

On 07/06/11 12:48, JB wrote:

> Could some basic test plan (or suite) for disk performance be included in QA
> release criteria, so that current and historical same-test (for regression
> detection) data be available ?
> It needs not be fancy, just to alert in case of bad things coming (we are
> talking about out-of-the-box experience).
>
> JB
>
>
>
>
>

Better asked on the test list, where QA is discussed:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

--
Regards,

Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 06-07-2011, 12:23 PM
Alan Cox
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:18:18 +0000 (UTC)
JB <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora15_v_ubuntu1104&n um=1

Insufficient information to even guess.

Disk performance is very sensitive to activity and to location especially
if you have all the system on one disk.

So if they put both OS's on the same disk at once and always put one OS
on the outside of the disc, that would give numbers of that nature.
Equally if Fedora has soem crappy background app that keeps writing
little bits of pointless data to the disk every second that'll do the job
nicely too.

Or it could be the I/O scheduler tunings I guess. Over-aggressive power
management is another possibility.

You'd have to duplicate their results, then work back removing variables
until you found it.

Alan
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 06-07-2011, 04:20 PM
JB
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

Alan Cox <alan <at> lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

> ...
> Equally if Fedora has soem crappy background app that keeps writing
> little bits of pointless data to the disk every second that'll do the job
> nicely too.

I think you did not make this comment out of the blue ?
So why not bring it (them) into the light and knock around a bit ?
Btw, would that apply to kernel daemons as well ?

> ...

Below are two comments relevant to test results.

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?54939-Is-Fedora-15-Faster-Than-Ubuntu-11.04

AdamW
...
Also it'd be interesting to know if you kept the OS default partitioning scheme
(in which case the Fedora install would likely have an LVM layer the Ubuntu one
would not.)

Yes, defaults.
...

Ard Righ
Junior Member
Default Default LVM partitions
One of the annoyances of Fedora, is the LVM-by-default install pattern that
is used, which is great for desktops, and possibly basic servers, but
generally sucks arse for laptops.
And LVM will always kill performance.
I am fairly sure removing LVM would even the disk performance numbers up to
minimal differences.

JB


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 06-07-2011, 04:30 PM
Alan Cox
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
JB <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alan Cox <alan <at> lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>
> > ...
> > Equally if Fedora has soem crappy background app that keeps writing
> > little bits of pointless data to the disk every second that'll do the job
> > nicely too.
>
> I think you did not make this comment out of the blue ?

I've not looked into F15 disk performance, and as I never plan to run
FC15 I doubt I ever will. I'm skipping this release.

I can't specifically say FC15 has that problem but its something I've
seen chasing down I/O performance problems on systems. It doesn't
take much to give a disk a pile of extra seeks to do and that hurts
because seek times haven't changed in years and are now relatively very
expensive.

> So why not bring it (them) into the light and knock around a bit ?
> Btw, would that apply to kernel daemons as well ?

I've no interest in Fedora 15 and pinning it down is a fairly big job
involving various re-installs.

> Also it'd be interesting to know if you kept the OS default partitioning scheme
> (in which case the Fedora install would likely have an LVM layer the Ubuntu one
> would not.)
>
> Yes, defaults.

Could be. Still fair benchmark because Fedora configures the disks that
way default.

Easy way to check - go do two installs on a box similar to the Phoronix
one and see what you get if you want to find out.

Alan
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 06-07-2011, 06:39 PM
"Michael H. Warfield"
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 17:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
> JB <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Alan Cox <alan <at> lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

Alan! Good lord, it's been years, dude... Too many years since ALS.
Too many years not making it to LinuxWorld (for me). Sigh...

> > > ...
> > > Equally if Fedora has soem crappy background app that keeps writing
> > > little bits of pointless data to the disk every second that'll do the job
> > > nicely too.
> >
> > I think you did not make this comment out of the blue ?

> I've not looked into F15 disk performance, and as I never plan to run
> FC15 I doubt I ever will. I'm skipping this release.

Do you really feel this is wise? I test every Fedora release
defensively. I want to know what they are screwing up before it's cast
in stone and I get burned by it down the road. F15 is certainly
building up a list on my shit-list already. I treat Ubuntu the same
way. Test the 6 month on at least one machine after giving it a month
for the dirt and debris to settle.

If you look back through this list you'll find one of my rants on
preupgrade (sucks less? sucks more?) Preupgrade basically destroyed a
machine under me thanks to (I believe) a dependency conflict with
avidmux that it failed to catch and that "yum distro-sync" caught and
handled gracefully on another machine that survived the upgrade.

They've also screwed up IPv6 autoconf over bridges needed for virtual
machines (mentioned in the aforementioned thread) and I'm about to file
a bug report on that. (Ok, ok... Messing with IPv6. Now THAT really
pisses me off...)

So far, I haven't experienced any disk performance degradation but I'll
start checking (on the machines that survived the upgrade... Sigh...).
One of them is one of my development engines with a lot of memory, a lot
of virtual machines and a whole lotta load. It better work and better
work good.

They've done enough in there to give it a careful look-over even if it's
on a machine you don't care about. I'm really REALLY unhappy with
systemd and the machine that got slagged, ATM. It's dumping me in
"Emergency Mode" and running "systemctl default" reports it could not
bring up the method "Transaction would be destructive." like what the
hell is THAT??? I'm withholding judgment but feel like systemd has the
makings of the biggest steaming pile since the early days of
NetworkMangler but I'm not reaching for the wooden stake and mallet just
yet. Since the early days of NetworkMangler, I've even done some work
on the NetworkManager plugins (vpnc and openswan). Even steaming piles
can fertilize productive end results. But, then again, I'm old school.
Give me scripts I can edit and debug. Don't cripple my system with
binaries that fsck-up and don't give me coherent errors.

> I can't specifically say FC15 has that problem but its something I've
> seen chasing down I/O performance problems on systems. It doesn't
> take much to give a disk a pile of extra seeks to do and that hurts
> because seek times haven't changed in years and are now relatively very
> expensive.

I've seen crypto do this or some configurations of raid and MD. Your
absolutely correct. I've seen a change in an order of magnitude there
just from minor tweaks and changes. Long gone are the days we worried
about and tweaked the interleave of drives for the spindle speed. The
concept and effects remain with us and the impact remains the same.

> > So why not bring it (them) into the light and knock around a bit ?
> > Btw, would that apply to kernel daemons as well ?

> I've no interest in Fedora 15 and pinning it down is a fairly big job
> involving various re-installs.

> > Also it'd be interesting to know if you kept the OS default partitioning scheme
> > (in which case the Fedora install would likely have an LVM layer the Ubuntu one
> > would not.)
> >
> > Yes, defaults.

> Could be. Still fair benchmark because Fedora configures the disks that
> way default.

Yeah... Would also be interesting to compare a fresh install to an
upgrade.

> Easy way to check - go do two installs on a box similar to the Phoronix
> one and see what you get if you want to find out.

> Alan

Regards,
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com
//|=mhw=|// | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 06-07-2011, 08:25 PM
Joe Zeff
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

On 06/07/2011 09:20 AM, JB wrote:
> One of the annoyances of Fedora, is the LVM-by-default install pattern that
> is used, which is great for desktops, and possibly basic servers, but
> generally sucks arse for laptops.

IMHMO, LVM is great for servers or other multi-disk systems because it
allows you to add extra space to a partition on-the-fly, even from a
different physical disk if needed. I find it hard to imagine, however,
why a home user would need such flexibility and I think that using
LVM-by-default isn't exactly the best idea. I have, I'll admit, one
partition on an LVM. That's only because of a brain fart when I was
setting it up (I forgot to turn it off.) and it's not been a big enough
deal yet to make me want to back up that small partition, unmount it and
repartition it to get rid of the LVM. If, however, I needed or wanted
to nuke and re-install, I'd get rid of it in a heartbeat because it's
just another un-needed level of complexity I don't have a use for.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 06-07-2011, 08:35 PM
JD
 
Default Why F15 has up to 50% worse disk performance than Ubuntu ?

On 06/07/2011 01:25 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 09:20 AM, JB wrote:
>> One of the annoyances of Fedora, is the LVM-by-default install pattern that
>> is used, which is great for desktops, and possibly basic servers, but
>> generally sucks arse for laptops.
> IMHMO, LVM is great for servers or other multi-disk systems because it
> allows you to add extra space to a partition on-the-fly, even from a
> different physical disk if needed. I find it hard to imagine, however,
> why a home user would need such flexibility and I think that using
> LVM-by-default isn't exactly the best idea. I have, I'll admit, one
> partition on an LVM. That's only because of a brain fart when I was
> setting it up (I forgot to turn it off.) and it's not been a big enough
> deal yet to make me want to back up that small partition, unmount it and
> repartition it to get rid of the LVM. If, however, I needed or wanted
> to nuke and re-install, I'd get rid of it in a heartbeat because it's
> just another un-needed level of complexity I don't have a use for.
+1
However, having heard so many problems about F15,
even from seasoned users/admins on this list, I am not
updating to F15 any time soon.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:06 AM.

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