Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Fedora 7 to 10 Benchmarks

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2

    Default

    The source of the problem is quite obvious to anyone looking at the benchmarks:

    The person doing the test screwed up.

    The tests all need to be run again. You need to stop using erroneous, spurious results until you can explain -exactly- what happened. Not guess, not conjecture, and certainly not blind acceptance.

    Do the tests properly. Stop using the obviously faulty results. Stop. Really. Stop embarrassing the community you supposedly represent by showing that new distributions are half as fast as older ones.

    It's a problem seen throughout the OSS community: Other than a handful of major projects, the kids don't want to finish their work. They don't want to debug, they don't want to write documentation, or they don't want to do proper benchmarking.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Groningen, The Netherlands
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Michael, did you update your bios to the most recent version?

    I've had problems with lenovo's (the C2D versions) running XP & Vista, the problem seemed to have been solved with the later biosses. Problems I had where that while the OS would report both core's running at full load, only one core was actually doing the work.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rendus View Post
    The source of the problem is quite obvious to anyone looking at the benchmarks:

    The person doing the test screwed up.

    The tests all need to be run again. You need to stop using erroneous, spurious results until you can explain -exactly- what happened. Not guess, not conjecture, and certainly not blind acceptance.

    Do the tests properly. Stop using the obviously faulty results. Stop. Really. Stop embarrassing the community you supposedly represent by showing that new distributions are half as fast as older ones.

    It's a problem seen throughout the OSS community: Other than a handful of major projects, the kids don't want to finish their work. They don't want to debug, they don't want to write documentation, or they don't want to do proper benchmarking.
    That's completely the wrong attitude to take -- it amounts to:
    "If you can't explain it, then it doesn't exist"

    Just like most users who file bugs don't fix or debug them, it's not Micheal's job to do so either. He just has to deliver a reproducible test case.

    Now, I'm all open as to the cause and maybe it's his config or his testsuite somehow, but it's just unfair to both blindy accept or deny his results. What matters at this point it to try this comparison on other hardware and to have other users also try to reproduce this.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daveerickson View Post
    Per this link:
    http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/704tour
    Gnome was version 2.18.
    Woops. You got me there. It was not 1.8, but 2.18. Anyway, gnome was MUCH faster then compared to what it is now. Seriously.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rendus View Post
    The source of the problem is quite obvious to anyone looking at the benchmarks:

    The person doing the test screwed up.

    The tests all need to be run again. You need to stop using erroneous, spurious results until you can explain -exactly- what happened. Not guess, not conjecture, and certainly not blind acceptance.

    Do the tests properly. Stop using the obviously faulty results. Stop. Really. Stop embarrassing the community you supposedly represent by showing that new distributions are half as fast as older ones.

    It's a problem seen throughout the OSS community: Other than a handful of major projects, the kids don't want to finish their work. They don't want to debug, they don't want to write documentation, or they don't want to do proper benchmarking.

    You're wrong - Michael is doing a great job. If you're so sure that he screwed up, please tell us where and why he did - as long as you don't have such answers, you're only contradicting yourself.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Very interesting, but I don't believe the ubuntu 7.04 results !

    I see no reason why the Ram sequential read bandwith should nearly double simply by changing distribution. Such test is not OS dependent, nor compiler dependent (even an unoptimized code should easiy reach the maximum memory bandwidth). Therefore I suspect something wrong and 7.04 specific in the time measurements....

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urfe View Post
    You're wrong - Michael is doing a great job. If you're so sure that he screwed up, please tell us where and why he did - as long as you don't have such answers, you're only contradicting yourself.
    There is more than enough proof (see also this another thread : http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showt...t=13486&page=6) that the results for all distributions except Ubuntu 7.04 must be wrong. The numbers are far too low for a notebook of this type.

    1. If a user with the same type of notebook (Lenovo T60) gets results for Ubuntu 6.06, Ubuntu 8.04 and Ubuntu 8.10 that are twice as fast as the ones from Phoronix test and these results are nearly the same as the ones for Ubuntu 7.04 from the Phoronix test, there must be something wrong.

    2. If users with slower hardware get better or the nearly same results for Ubuntu 8.10 in the audio-encoding tests (for example my 1GHz P3-Notebook) as the T60 from the Phoronix-test, than the results can't be right.

    We can't say what went wrong, but there is enough proof that something went wrong.

    P.S. :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gctt View Post
    Very interesting, but I don't believe the ubuntu 7.04 results !

    I see no reason why the Ram sequential read bandwith should nearly double simply by changing distribution. Such test is not OS dependent, nor compiler dependent (even an unoptimized code should easiy reach the maximum memory bandwidth). Therefore I suspect something wrong and 7.04 specific in the time measurements....
    Hi everyone,

    I agree, there is no distribution-specific reason why a RAM bandwidth benchmark could differ so significantly.

    A possible reason for the 2x difference in RAM throughput (and other benchmarks): CPU was underclocked (SpeedStepped), maybe due to the Laptop running on battery, or due to a different scaling governor (or both). This is the most likely thing in my opinion. Is there a way you can check this in your results, Michael?

    Another reason could be a change in memory configuration, i.e. one memory channel being turned off.

    An unused core (i.e. 1 core instead of 2) doesn't seem a valid reason, the RAM-Benchmark is single-threaded, isn't it?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasen View Post
    There is more than enough proof (see also this another thread : http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showt...t=13486&page=6) that the results for all distributions except Ubuntu 7.04 must be wrong. The numbers are far too low for a notebook of this type.

    1. If a user with the same type of notebook (Lenovo T60) gets results for Ubuntu 6.06, Ubuntu 8.04 and Ubuntu 8.10 that are twice as fast as the ones from Phoronix test and these results are nearly the same as the ones for Ubuntu 7.04 from the Phoronix test, there must be something wrong.

    2. If users with slower hardware get better or the nearly same results for Ubuntu 8.10 in the audio-encoding tests (for example my 1GHz P3-Notebook) as the T60 from the Phoronix-test, than the results can't be right.

    We can't say what went wrong, but there is enough proof that something went wrong.

    P.S. :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
    I also think something went wrong - I am just irritated by Rendus's comments.

    But even if there's a hardware issue/incompatibility/some wrong default settings in some configuration file/compiled kernel - the tests are still valid: decrease in performance.
    Such deltas between updated distros are.. well, interesting.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    With EIST disabled, did you check the frequency? Could it be that on the non-7.04 distro/kernels, it was operating at the lowest by default?

    Usually without OS-controlled cpufreq, the bios handles the cpu policy and may run at the lowest speed until it determines enough load. The problem in such cases is that the load may not be high enough (meaning just enough idleness in cpu %) to increase the freq. This is usually when if you're not 100% spinning on the cpu i.e. doing lots memory access or even just a small but frequent amount of I/O access.

    that's my 2cents worth of a guess anyways..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •