Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Ubuntu 10.04 Is Off To A Poor Performance Start

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    44

    Lightbulb Some precisions

    Quote Originally Posted by hax0r View Post
    And why not benchmark alpha? It's not like the final release will run 3x faster, the numbers pretty much reflect actual performance that likely will not change.

    Who is exactly affected by ext4 bug? I'm using "data=writeback,noatime,nodiratime" options.
    I'm sorry but I totally disagree, the final version can be much faster even more than what you think.

    I'm studying Software Engineer and when we build a software("debug, alpha" version), they are provided with debug informations and lot's of "bulk" software in it.
    There's no real reason to build a release version with all the optimizations on it since it's a DEV version.

    Firstly we do want everything to work as it has to work before compile it as a release version.

    For example : if you print a single line in console or in a file (it's a very basic instruction but often used "log files etc..") afer every action you do when you ask a SQL database for example. The overall performance of the database will drop down drastically.

    Of course a test is a mean to have informations on what you are doing.
    So this bench is not totally useless.

    But you shouldn't care about drops in performance right now but more about increases
    The next alpha can have results totally different from this one and the following will follow the same way.
    Until all optimizations are turned on and all the debug features removed you can't say that's worse.

    Anyway none of this drops will stay like this, they do take care of performance and all will change but a drop by 90% of performance
    will not be effective on the release.

    Hope this help everyone to understand what an "alpha, beta etc." is.
    Last edited by dl.zerocool; 12-09-2009 at 02:08 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    And who uses ext4 anyway?
    Anyone with a default Ubuntu install from 9.10 onwards?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dl.zerocool View Post
    I'm sorry but I totally disagree, the final version can be much faster even more than what you think.

    I'm studying Software Engineer and when we build a software("debug, alpha" version), they are provided with debug informations and lot's of "bulk" software in it.
    There's no real reason to build a release version with all the optimizations on it since it's a DEV version.

    Firstly we do want everything to work as it has to work before compile it as a release version.

    For example : if you print a single line in console or in a file (it's a very basic instruction but often used "log files etc..") afer every action you do when you ask a SQL database for example. The overall performance of the database will drop down drastically.

    Of course a test is a mean to have informations on what you are doing.
    So this bench is not totally useless.

    But you shouldn't care about drops in performance right now but more about increases
    The next alpha can have results totally different from this one and the following will follow the same way.
    Until all optimizations are turned on and all the debug features removed you can't say that's worse.

    Anyway none of this drops will stay like this, they do take care of performance and all will change but a drop by 90% of performance
    will not be effective on the release.

    Hope this help everyone to understand what an "alpha, beta etc." is.
    Ubuntu doesn't follow this development model. It imports packages from debian, it has its own kernel team. It doesn't do a debug/release version of packages, it does stripped debug builds. All the packages that are in ubuntu are not in an alpha state, they're just current versions.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Anyone with a default Ubuntu install from 9.10 onwards?
    You can specify what FS you want to use with Ubuntu 9.10. I did that with Kubuntu 9.10... The option is available from the GUI installer on the LiveCD

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    You can specify what FS you want to use with Ubuntu 9.10. I did that with Kubuntu 9.10... The option is available from the GUI installer on the LiveCD
    Sure, but most people will just use the defaults; certainly I did when I installed 9.10 on my netbook, though only because there's nothing on there important enough that I'd cry if ext4 bugs ate it .

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Sure, but most people will just use the defaults; certainly I did when I installed 9.10 on my netbook, though only because there's nothing on there important enough that I'd cry if ext4 bugs ate it .
    There isn't really a bug... it's a feature. Hey that sounds familiar

    But all kidding aside... the Ext4 feature that we're talking about is a, I believe tripple, integrety check just to make the FS more safe. Adding another one of those Oracle integrety layers makes the system, of course, a lot slower

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garytr24 View Post
    Ubuntu doesn't follow this development model. It imports packages from debian, it has its own kernel team. It doesn't do a debug/release version of packages, it does stripped debug builds. All the packages that are in ubuntu are not in an alpha state, they're just current versions.
    It do not import everything from debian.

    They also build their own version based on svn sources.

    It's common to see ubuntu packages with svn in their version.

    All canonical supported packages are not only "imported" from debian.
    Sources are !
    That's why they do all this stages before getting a release.
    They are not only waiting for new packages to come to debian and then integrate them and hopefully I would say.

    All devs will tell you that during a testing stage there's no insurance that there's not some code here or there that will slow down the all thing.
    So you can't only base your judgement on beta/alpha's benchmarks.

    I'm not here to say that this test is useful or not. Just to attract attention on this point.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by hax0r View Post
    And why not benchmark alpha? It's not like the final release will run 3x faster, the numbers pretty much reflect actual performance that likely will not change.

    Who is exactly affected by ext4 bug? I'm using "data=writeback,noatime,nodiratime" options.
    YOU ARE AFFECTED!

    You have to add ",barrier=1" to your options.
    Otherwise there is a big performance penalty.
    Some have said it is of the order of 15 times slower than before...

    Not a thing to forget!

    But this more agressive setting will have a price. The EXT4 journaling may becomes unreliable... If you lose power at the wrong time, at reboot the system will apply the transactions not done from the journal but the journal will be corrupted ... This will hose your file system for sure. I'm going to move everything to reiser4 or something else soon if there is no solution.

    Do we need a journal for the journal ??? Ask the EXT4 guys they must be pulling out their hairs right now!!!

    Regards,

    BT

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    305

    Default

    I don't know how useful benchmarks are for the initial alpha versions of distributions. I would fully expect that speed of bootup is the least of the team's worries at this point. The team has put it in the spotlight yes, but bootup speed is not something that just happens when you throw everything together and once they have the right components then they can start worrying about speed.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PerfMonk View Post
    Do we need a journal for the journal ??? Ask the EXT4 guys they must be pulling out their hairs right now!!!
    Or ask the rfs4 guys, they must be laughing at the ext4 ones right now. Recovering a filesystem correctly from a software crash is a solved problem. Giving a useful level of data integrity without running slower than molasses has been done too - ext3 does it. I don't know how these guys managed to screw a formerly good filesystem up so badly.

Posting Permissions

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