Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.

    No benchmark ever done by Phoronix shows that.
    then you must be doing something wrong

    for me it's somewhat the opposite:

    I can work with Windows 7 most of the time but during heavy copying - and especially during antivirus scanning (set to high priority), indexing of files with copernic desktop, google desktop, etc. you simply can't work with it - the delays take MINUTES
    - this really shouldn't affect productivity

    compare that to my Gentoo system with 2.6.34 or 2.6.35:
    even during heaviest transfers, compiling, etc. it's still responsible and I'm NOT using BFS or BFQ - only stock CFS and CFQ - it's not even locking up when doing a desktop search indexing, copying my roughly 800 GB /home partition to another disk (both encrypted), hearing webradio, surfing, etc. etc.
    - the only problem also taking MINUTES to react is when it's swapping out memory but that's a problem due to heavy swapping when I use all of my memory (not the typical case)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC
    The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman
    I think you're wrong. Here's the issue probably and finally, it seems to be fixed soon:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/1/40
    Both interesting observations. I can't speak much for the situation in Windows since I only use it to play one game (XP). The few times I touch a Vista laptop from some friend I find it lagging with lots of disk I/O. What I can tell for sure is that Linux doesn't behave ideally either. Be it Firefox touching its database or some other program doing something, the whole system is not responsive for as long as the read/writes last. It would be excellent if that commit fixed this issue.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    Both interesting observations. I can't speak much for the situation in Windows since I only use it to play one game (XP). The few times I touch a Vista laptop from some friend I find it lagging with lots of disk I/O. What I can tell for sure is that Linux doesn't behave ideally either. Be it Firefox touching its database or some other program doing something, the whole system is not responsive for as long as the read/writes last. It would be excellent if that commit fixed this issue.
    There's definitely some problem in both. In 32bit XP when system was doing something in the background (antivir or some other activity, maybe refreshing Add/remove programs) it become unresponsive. There's similar behavior, but in 64bit Linux when copying large files. Me and my friend didn't notice this is 32bit Linux and afaik he didn't notice this in his Windows. I hope it will be fixed this time, because it can be very irritating.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Why it can't? Search for OS X benchmarks and you'll see Linux also outperformed it in this test.
    So the test has issues on OS X as well.
    In a CPU raw test there's no way the OS can have that effect, as simple as that...
    To do a comparison that is meaningful you should always test native code... who cares if a test written for Linux and ported with some type of compatibility layer is slower on Windows!
    What's the point in such a test? Do you want me to write a test on Windows and then port it poorly on Linux to get opposite results? LOL!

  5. #15

    Default

    The problem I mentioned earlier is not the only one. For instance ext4, NTFS and even HFS+ (I see OS X mentioned) are all journaled file systems. Was journaling enabled in these tests? I don't see this information mentioned anywhere.

    I don't mean to offend the author but perhaps someone more competent should do these benchmarks, i.e., someone with some knowledge of how operating systems actually work. Knowing how to run a program does not count as OS knowledge.

    Cheers,
    Bogdan

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    The problem I mentioned earlier is not the only one. For instance ext4, NTFS and even HFS+ (I see OS X mentioned) are all journaled file systems. Was journaling enabled in these tests? I don't see this information mentioned anywhere.

    I don't mean to offend the author but perhaps someone more competent should do these benchmarks, i.e., someone with some knowledge of how operating systems actually work. Knowing how to run a program does not count as OS knowledge.

    Cheers,
    Bogdan
    Bogdan, the author is pretty much the main force behind the program and he is helped by people who know their shit.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    then you must be doing something wrong

    for me it's somewhat the opposite:

    I can work with Windows 7 most of the time but during heavy copying - and especially during antivirus scanning (set to high priority), indexing of files with copernic desktop, google desktop, etc. you simply can't work with it - the delays take MINUTES
    - this really shouldn't affect productivity
    Wait a moment, you set the virus scan to *high priority* and you are wondering why the delays take minutes? Good god!

    Virus scans should always run at low or idle priorities.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    The problem I mentioned earlier is not the only one. For instance ext4, NTFS and even HFS+ (I see OS X mentioned) are all journaled file systems. Was journaling enabled in these tests? I don't see this information mentioned anywhere.

    I don't mean to offend the author but perhaps someone more competent should do these benchmarks, i.e., someone with some knowledge of how operating systems actually work. Knowing how to run a program does not count as OS knowledge.

    Cheers,
    Bogdan
    well BOTH OSes are journaled genius, aka NTFS is journaled by default and is not easy to turn it off and ext4 comes journaled by default (if you dont want journal you just go all way back to ext2).

    maybe you need to check your "OS" knowledge

  9. #19

    Default

    First of all, file systems are journaled, not OSes. Your observation that both of them are journaled is great, esp. since my quote says exactly that. Journaling can be enabled/disabled for both NTFS and ext4. I'm not sure why I should care that journaling is enabled by default. Even if it were normal to assume that journaling was turned on for both file systems then the benchmark is incomplete. Which one's faster with journaling disabled? Any benchmark should give the appropriate information.

    Next time please at least look up the information you claim to understand.

    Cheers,
    Bogdan

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Wait a moment, you set the virus scan to *high priority* and you are wondering why the delays take minutes? Good god!

    Virus scans should always run at low or idle priorities.
    you read the rest - right ?

    this was just to get some attention

    copernic desktop, google desktop, etc. afaik weren't set to high priority - in fact they were at normal priority and the system still sucked

    if it's a GUI-based Operating System the should keep the GUI usable at ALL times

Posting Permissions

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