Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 80

Thread: Can Ubuntu 9.10 Outperform Mac OS X 10.6?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, this is possible.



    Yep, I'm also interested.
    The reason I say it might be a factor is because openSSL performance in the benchmark are surprising considering that the LLVM project mentions it as being one of the key performance libraries that 10.6 compiled with LLVM.

    http://llvm.org/Users.html

    Mac OS X 10.6 (and later): The OpenCL GPGPU implementation is built on Clang and LLVM compiler technology. This requires parsing an extended dialect of C at runtime and JIT compiling it to run on the CPU, GPU, or both at the same time. In addition, several performance sensitive pieces of Mac OS X 10.6 were built with llvm-gcc such as OpenSSL and Hotspot. Finally, the compiler_rt library has replaced libgcc and is now a part of libsystem.dylib.
    Something is a amiss, and determining the cause of poor performance is probably more important then the specific results. Some investigation is needed. Pehaps a run against 10.6 own openSSL library would provide some insight to this.

  2. #12

    Default

    gcc vs. llvm-gcc on 10.6 results should be out this week.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    gcc vs. llvm-gcc on 10.6 results should be out this week.
    Thanks Michael.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default

    I may be talking out of my arse here, but didn't it used to be that a number of the packages in the alpha releases of Ubuntu used to have lots of extra debug stuff enabled, which would slow their performance down?

    It seems odd to me to bother benchmarking pre-release software against a completely different, stable, OS?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garp View Post
    I may be talking out of my arse here, but didn't it used to be that a number of the packages in the alpha releases of Ubuntu used to have lots of extra debug stuff enabled, which would slow their performance down?

    It seems odd to me to bother benchmarking pre-release software against a completely different, stable, OS?
    That varies from distro to distro. IIRC Ubuntu doesn't have debug enabled in their alpha or beta releases.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    The reason I say it might be a factor is because openSSL performance in the benchmark are surprising considering that the LLVM project mentions it as being one of the key performance libraries that 10.6 compiled with LLVM.

    http://llvm.org/Users.html



    Something is a amiss, and determining the cause of poor performance is probably more important then the specific results. Some investigation is needed. Pehaps a run against 10.6 own openSSL library would provide some insight to this.


    There is a lot more going on here then just compilers.

    Linux features a robust 'Linux Kernel Cryptographic API' that is used by various programs to accelerate things. Features such as fast random number generations, cryptographic kernel modules, and that sort of thing.

    One of it's original purposes was to accelerate IPSEC, which requires in-kernel cryptographic algorithm support to work properly. OpenSSL takes advantage of it when present.

    This sort of thing, especially random number generation performance, is going to be my guess as to why Linux outclasses OS X by a wide margin.


    It's theoretically possible that OpenCL might make a difference. But OpenSSL would have to be re-designed to take advantage of it.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    That varies from distro to distro. IIRC Ubuntu doesn't have debug enabled in their alpha or beta releases.

    They are probably following Debian's conventions. Which would not be surprising since Debian is were Ubuntu gets almost all their software from. With Debian there is no real 'Beta' until after Testing is more-or-less frozen. Unstable and testing are under constant development and it is from that pool that Ubuntu pulls their packages.

    Debian strips binaries for size and optimizes for performance. If you want debug support you have to install -dbg versions of packages. This makes things tougher time to time for administrators or programmers that need to debug something, but for the most part it's setup to be used for end users and not a development environment.

  8. #18

    Default 64bit?

    Does anyone know if these test were run with the 64 bit kernel?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quality review! One of the best!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    339

    Thumbs down Older is better

    Quote Originally Posted by WasabiVengeance View Post
    I really wish phoronix would include ubu 8.10 in benchmark. Many people have refused to upgrade because of the intel graphics performance regression with 9.04 and 9.10.
    I really wish the test were conducted on older hardware.

    1. Pentium III. 384 Megabytes of ram.

    Minimums!

    I like the publicity Ubuntu is getting but it won't run for chet on older hardware. Thanks to the good ol' boys. Bo' Linus and Ingo Luke.

Posting Permissions

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