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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-27-2008, 10:44 AM
Mirco Müller
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

Greetings everybody!

Phoronix ran performance tests on releases 7.04, 7.10, 8.04 and 8.10rc.
8.10 seems to be the worst performer of the quartet. Have a look at
their summarizing article:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1

They are trying to be fair and point out possible causes for the
slowdowns. While this has only been tested on a ThinkPad T60 their
initial findings are nothing to write home about. Most influential are
crucial parts like the kernel, gcc, Xorg, graphics-drivers.

Time for alarm-bells to go off?

Best regards ...

Mirco


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Mon Oct 27 14:30:01 2008
Return-path: <bounce-debian-user=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:45:35 +0200
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([82.195.75.100])
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <bounce-debian-user=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>)
id 1KuQXP-0000wa-8g
for tom@linux-archive.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:45:35 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 0CC3F13A53DF; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:45:11 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <mdonada@auroraalimentos.com.br>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on liszt.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.0 required=4.0 tests=LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST
autolearn=failed version=3.2.3
X-Original-To: lists-debian-user@liszt.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-user@liszt.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D350813A48E4
for <lists-debian-user@liszt.debian.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:45:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id 02450-20 for <lists-debian-user@liszt.debian.org>;
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:45:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate: -4.6
X-Greylist: delayed 900 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at liszt; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:45:00 UTC
Received: from mx.auroraalimentos.com.br (mx.auroraalimentos.com.br [200.228.43.6])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C5413A5248
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:44:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mx.auroraalimentos.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154CA33F33
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:28:17 -0200 (BRST)
Received: from mx.auroraalimentos.com.br ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mx.auroraalimentos.com.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id vnS6MnnPl1dM for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>;
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:28:16 -0200 (BRST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [121.1.16.22])
by mx.auroraalimentos.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851C533F16
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:28:16 -0200 (BRST)
Message-ID: <4905A5E3.1030001@auroraalimentos.com.br>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:28:35 -0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1rcio_Luciano_Donada?=
<mdonada@auroraalimentos.com.br>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Snort (debian (etch) always ago)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 081027-0, 27/10/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=3.6 required=5.3
tests=[LDO_WHITELIST=-5]
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-09-24_01
Resent-Message-ID: <uemykluDZZH.A.CEG.HnaBJB@liszt>
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/532194
X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-user.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:45:11 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi list,

Because debian (etch) while still maintaining version 2.3.3. FreeBSD,
for example currunt already uses the version 2.8.2.2. Why not at least
debian stable places in the version 2.4, I have problems to update the
rules with the oinkmaster

thnx.
--=20
M=E1rcio Luciano Donada <mdonada at auroraalimentos dot com dot br>
Aurora Alimentos - Cooperativa Central Oeste Catarinense
Departamento de T.I.


--=20
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org=20
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian=
.org
 
Old 10-27-2008, 10:49 AM
"Iain Lane"
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Mirco Müller <mirco.mueller@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Greetings everybody!
>
> Phoronix ran performance tests on releases 7.04, 7.10, 8.04 and 8.10rc.
> 8.10 seems to be the worst performer of the quartet. Have a look at
> their summarizing article:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1
>
> They are trying to be fair and point out possible causes for the
> slowdowns. While this has only been tested on a ThinkPad T60 their
> initial findings are nothing to write home about. Most influential are
> crucial parts like the kernel, gcc, Xorg, graphics-drivers.
>
> Time for alarm-bells to go off?
>
> Best regards ...
>
> Mirco
>

Hi,

This is interesting, and I'm glad that they haven't tried to point
fingers at Ubuntu for this. Do you know of any similar tests for other
distros, so we can see if there is an across-the-board problem?

Iain

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 11:06 AM
Mirco Müller
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

Am Montag, den 27.10.2008, 11:49 +0000 schrieb Iain Lane:

> This is interesting, and I'm glad that they haven't tried to point
> fingers at Ubuntu for this. Do you know of any similar tests for other
> distros, so we can see if there is an across-the-board problem?

I don't know of any comparable distro-benchmarking from the past.

I'm not surprised that the people behind Phoronix did not point fingers
at Ubuntu, but rather tried to figure out what pieces making up a distro
could be the most likely causes for slowdowns in certain areas.

While the editors are more technically than the normal user "from the
street", these users will point fingers at Ubuntu, because they usually
don't know better (due to the lack necessary insight) ... and they
should not need to do so in the first place.

I'll try to get so more information about their findings.

Best regards ...

Mirco


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 11:36 AM
"Jeff Schroeder"
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

> From: Mirco M?ller <mirco.mueller@ubuntu.com>
> Subject: performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc
>
> Greetings everybody!
>
> Phoronix ran performance tests on releases 7.04, 7.10, 8.04 and 8.10rc.
> 8.10 seems to be the worst performer of the quartet. Have a look at
> their summarizing article:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1
>
> They are trying to be fair and point out possible causes for the
> slowdowns. While this has only been tested on a ThinkPad T60 their
> initial findings are nothing to write home about. Most influential are
> crucial parts like the kernel, gcc, Xorg, graphics-drivers.
>
> Time for alarm-bells to go off?

Well from a networking standpoint, the Linux kernel has been doing
poorly as of late:
http://www.ioremap.net/node/37

It looks like phoronix missed that aspect entirely :-/

> Best regards ...
>
> Mirco

--
Jeff Schroeder

Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
http://www.digitalprognosis.com

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 11:42 AM
Mirco Müller
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

Am Montag, den 27.10.2008, 13:06 +0100 schrieb Mirco Müller:

> ...
> I'll try to get so more information about their findings.

Here's the first answer from one of Phoronix' editors:

http://phoronix.com/forums/showpost.php?p=49945&postcount=3

Best regards ...

Mirco


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 11:44 AM
Michael Larabel
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

Mirco Müller wrote:
> Am Montag, den 27.10.2008, 11:49 +0000 schrieb Iain Lane:
>
>
>> This is interesting, and I'm glad that they haven't tried to point
>> fingers at Ubuntu for this. Do you know of any similar tests for other
>> distros, so we can see if there is an across-the-board problem?
>>
>
> I don't know of any comparable distro-benchmarking from the past.
>
> I'm not surprised that the people behind Phoronix did not point fingers
> at Ubuntu, but rather tried to figure out what pieces making up a distro
> could be the most likely causes for slowdowns in certain areas.
>
> While the editors are more technically than the normal user "from the
> street", these users will point fingers at Ubuntu, because they usually
> don't know better (due to the lack necessary insight) ... and they
> should not need to do so in the first place.
>
> I'll try to get so more information about their findings.
>
> Best regards ...
>
> Mirco
>

Hi,

Yes, we intend on running the same tests on Fedora from the T60. Other
distributions may be added depending upon time constraints and the
results from Fedora (10 Snapshot 3 through probably FC7). Other hardware
(including x86_64) may also be used in additional Ubuntu comparative
benchmarks.


-- Michael

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 11:46 AM
Michael Larabel
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>> From: Mirco M?ller <mirco.mueller@ubuntu.com>
>> Subject: performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc
>>
>> Greetings everybody!
>>
>> Phoronix ran performance tests on releases 7.04, 7.10, 8.04 and 8.10rc.
>> 8.10 seems to be the worst performer of the quartet. Have a look at
>> their summarizing article:
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1
>>
>> They are trying to be fair and point out possible causes for the
>> slowdowns. While this has only been tested on a ThinkPad T60 their
>> initial findings are nothing to write home about. Most influential are
>> crucial parts like the kernel, gcc, Xorg, graphics-drivers.
>>
>> Time for alarm-bells to go off?
>>
>
> Well from a networking standpoint, the Linux kernel has been doing
> poorly as of late:
> http://www.ioremap.net/node/37
>
> It looks like phoronix missed that aspect entirely :-/
>
>
It's not that we avoided the network performance area but that there are
no network test profiles currently written for the Phoronix Test Suite
so that they could be conducted in an automated way. Though it shouldn't
be too much of a problem to push a tbench profile in there so that it
automatically gets picked up in the next round of tests.

Michael
>> Best regards ...
>>
>> Mirco
>>
>
>


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 12:35 PM
Dan Munckton
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

Hi folks

While we're on the topic of performance, when I first upgraded to Hardy
I certainly felt that something had degraded somewhere
performance-wise.

For the first time in years of Ubuntu use (and with the same machine) I
found myself waiting for a temporarily hung Nautilus (shivers at
reminder of Windows days), and experienced my music cutting out
occasionally when some other process did something processor or IO
intensive. I never experienced these problems before, at least not quite
as obviously.

I've not done any background on this though, it's just my perception.
Has anyone else noticed these sorts of things?

Cheers

Dan


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 12:40 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

Mirco Müller schrieb:
> Greetings everybody!
>
> Phoronix ran performance tests on releases 7.04, 7.10, 8.04 and 8.10rc.
> 8.10 seems to be the worst performer of the quartet. Have a look at
> their summarizing article:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1
>
> They are trying to be fair and point out possible causes for the
> slowdowns. While this has only been tested on a ThinkPad T60 their
> initial findings are nothing to write home about. Most influential are
> crucial parts like the kernel, gcc, Xorg, graphics-drivers.
>
> Time for alarm-bells to go off?

"Java: In the Java SciMark computational tests, the performance was slower in the Ubuntu 8.xx
releases. This may be explained by IcedTea, but that shouldn't be since it's derived from OpenJDK
and Sun's official Java source-code."

please note, that the name of this test is misleading, it's not Java at all, so any conclusion about
OpenJDK/IcedTea is plain wrong.

Matthias

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 10-27-2008, 12:54 PM
Dan Munckton
 
Default performance tests conducted on 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10rc

> While we're on the topic of performance, when I first upgraded to Hardy
> I certainly felt that something had degraded somewhere
> performance-wise.

I note that the Completely Fair Scheduler was introduced in kernel
2.6.23. Gutsy used 2.6.22, Hardy 2.6.24. I guess this could very well be
a contributor to the change in responsiveness.

I will try to find time to recompile my kernel configured with the old
scheduler to see if that makes a difference.

I also note that compiling using gcc 4.3 does take much longer now. I
used to be able to compile the ports kernel on my PS3 with a cold ccache
using gcc 4.1 in about one hour. When I tested using 4.3 I think it took
just longer than 2 hours!


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 AM.

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