Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Gentoo vs. Ubuntu performance comparison

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mits View Post
    a comparison of "time to install" would be fun
    To make it a fair test, it'd have to include the time spent uninstalling all the unwanted crap that Ubuntu installs by default.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mits View Post
    a comparison of "time to install" would be fun
    hahaha,

    I remember my days of Gentoo, it was the first *nix OS I really used. Every other OS I tried (including windows) was slow as f$%# but Gentoo ran really really well...

    Of course that computer was completely unusable most of the time because I was compiling this&that.

    Gentoo taught me sooo much about linux...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,790

    Default

    "Time to install" has dropped immensely the last couple of years due to incredibly fast CPUs. It was no fun installing on a Pentium, Pentium 2 or even Pentium 3. It took days.

    Today, even on my poor Core2 Duo, it's a matter of hours

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    the comparism is fair. They compared the latest stable ubuntu with the latest stable gentoo.

    If you don't like the results, it coule be redone with unstable ubuntu and unstable gentoo.

    It wouldn't change the overall result.

    Me, I enjoy the fact that when I log into my desktop, no stupid gnome stuff is started, no mono taking away precious ram that could be used for caching files. I enjoy the fact that a lot of stuff is never installed. That I have the choice.

    Local mail? Hm.. postfix!
    I need a ftp server. Hm, that flag looks interessting, that feature too - and that one I will never use...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Patras, Greece
    Posts
    63

    Default

    are any optimization compiler flags used for the ubuntu packages? (guess not)
    Wouldn't it be nice to have an extra architecture in ubuntu that's fully optimized?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,790

    Default

    Optimization flags are always used. In Ubuntu and every other distro too. They don't use --march though, since the apps needs to run on many types of CPU. Compiling with --march=core2, would result in the distro not being able to run on anything older than an Intel Core 2.

    However, that is not the reason why Gentoo was faster in this test. It's just that Gentoo doesn't include a lot of bloat by default.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    822

    Default

    @mits: 32 bit binary distros such as Debian and Ubuntu use CFLAGS="-O2 -march=i486 -mtune=i686" because they have to run on older hardware too. (So no MMX/3DNow!/SSE for them). Other distros such as Arch and Fedora use -march=i686 which makes them look better in benchmarks at the expense of that compatibility.

    64 bit binary distros can use MMX/SSE/SSE2 for optimization, because all existing x86_64 CPUs support these instruction sets.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Patras, Greece
    Posts
    63

    Default

    I see... (I thought flags like -O2 were not used for some reason)
    so, a comparison between different -march settings would be nice...
    and if the performance gains are worth it, it would be meaningful to have a "kinda-new" architecture in linux distros, in which only the last x generations of cpus are supported...
    (I guess amd64 fits that role currently)

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mits
    Wouldn't it be nice to have an extra architecture in ubuntu that's fully optimized?
    I don't know if it would be nice, but it wouldn't be fair. Ubuntu is a distribution that is targeted at the general public, as is Debian or OpenSuse. They are binary distributions that aim to make sure that everything is easy on the user side. Users are not expected to compile their own kernels or their own packages. They can do it, sure, but they are not expected to; and if they do, they are on their own. On the other hand, the very nature of Gentoo--if I understand it correctly--is that the user takes a more active part on what (and how) is installed. I would assume that at a minimum, every Gentoo user especifically compiles her packages for the relevant target architecture plus some light optimisation flags. Since this is the default, it makes sense to do this if you want to benchmark Gentoo. However, it does not make sense to take Ubuntu, change everything about it, and read the results as if they had any meaning.

    You can apt-build world to recompile all the packages with your own optimisation flags in Debian/Ubuntu too. Would the benchmark results reflect what this distributions really are? Think about boot times benchmarks (extremelly pointless, I know); would it make sense to benchmark the boot time on a machine with tweaked runlevels and then claim that it reflects what distribution X is up to? If you think that it makes sense, you may as well accept the opposite, i.e. that it would make sense to benchmark it with all the possible daemons running from the beginning, mounting a dozen network drives, connecting to a hand of printers, starting a couple of mail servers and doing fsck on the local drives for good measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC
    that is not the reason why Gentoo was faster in this test. It's just that Gentoo doesn't include a lot of bloat by default.
    What bloat do you refer to that it would affect the numbers like that? It's not that Ubuntu runs random crappy applications for the sake of it--or that's what I hope.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    well, it runs gnome for the sake of it. It doesn't get any crappier.

    Apart from that, a release for everycpu out there (k8, amdfam10, core2, core, pentium4, pentiumm, centrino, blabla) would mean these thing:
    immense load for the mirrors
    immense pile of work for the packagers
    immense confusion for the users (which iso to download? I have a pentium4+64bit)
    exploding maintenance overhead.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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