Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Fedora 11 was released earlier this week so we have set out to see how its desktop performance compares to that of Ubuntu 9.04, which was released back in April. Using the Phoronix Test Suite we compared these two leading Linux distributions in tasks like code compilation, Apache web server performance, audio/video encoding, multi-processing, ray-tracing, computational biology, various disk tasks, graphics manipulation, encryption, chess AI, image conversion, database, and other tests.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13950

[SyXbiT]

It's obvious why Fedora might be faster (newer kernel, and ext4)
But seeing as Fedora uses mostly newer versions of all the software (vs Ubuntu) does that mean that the places where Fedora loses are regressions ?

[kraftman]

It's obvious why Fedora might be faster (newer kernel, and ext4)
But seeing for Fedora uses mostly newer versions of all the software (vs Ubuntu) does that mean that the places where Fedora loses are regressions ?

Fedora has SELinux enabled for default and it has sometimes big impact on performance:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/3/350

Ubuntu however, uses AppArmour, but I don't know if this slow its down.

[RealNC]

Better slow than crashing every 2 minutes I says.

[nathanvaneps]

It is a bad idea to have compilation benchmarks with different versions of a compiler. Because the speed of different compilers is an added variable to determining the speed of the OS. In fact, the difference of speed between different compilers might be the only reason for a speed difference between the OSes.

Also, as a developer, the speed of compilation is one of the last factors for consideration when choosing a compiler. I'd be primarily concerned with the speed of generated executable and supported languages, standards, and libraries.

[Kano]

Yes, also compile benchmarks are really stupid to compare on other systems, because depending how many depends are installed on a system the compile time may be longer or slower. PTS sometimes shows the fastest results when it did not fully complete

[nathanvaneps]

I should also say that I enjoy this site very much. And that is important to keep a tab on performance for the community. And one more thing, it isn't hard for me to skip looking at the compiler speed benchmarks when viewing the article.

It is a bad idea for me to offer constructive criticism, without saying I like everything else!

It is a bad idea to have compilation benchmarks with different versions of a compiler. Because the speed of different compilers is an added variable to determining the speed of the OS. In fact, the difference of speed between different compilers might be the only reason for a speed difference between the OSes.

Also, as a developer, the speed of compilation is one of the last factors for consideration when choosing a compiler. I'd be primarily concerned with the speed of generated executable and supported languages, standards, and libraries.

[mendieta]

I think "stupid" is a bit of harsh. I agree with the objections, but I think compilation of a rather large project has historically been used as an overall system benchmark because it exercises CPU, memory and disk read/writes. So, besides the caveats you all provided, it's still a nice benchmark if taken with a grain of salt

Michael: are you planning a 64 bit comparison? It would be nice to add it to the mix. Also, would it be possible to run Ubuntu on ext4 too see how much of the disk performance is coming from other factors? (different kernel, different compiler, libraries perhaps?)

[Kano]

Compile tests are not by definition bad benchmarks. As long as you use the SAME reference system and only change cpu/board it is valid to compare. But testing different distributions for compile speed leads to errors.

[mendieta]

(sorry, I resubmitted the same post by mistake, deleting it)