Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    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
    Michael always uses the defaults in these benchmarks, and the default for both systems is to have journaling enabled. If you want to test how different tweaks affect performance, you should try it out yourself. Michael generally won't do those tests himself. If you think that makes the whole test worthless, then you probably shouldn't even be reading Phoronix, becuase it's just going to keep pissing you off.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    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
    Unless stated otherwise, Michael only tests the default configuration.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    If you think that makes the whole test worthless, then you probably shouldn't even be reading Phoronix, becuase it's just going to keep pissing you off.
    No, I think the test is worthless because it's wrong for the reasons I stated here.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    No, I think the test is worthless because it's wrong for the reasons I stated here.
    I agree the Cygwin thing is a good catch. IOZone sucks as a benchmark anyway, I'd much prefer a more realistic test. Still, the FS comparison was only a portion of the benchmarks here, and I don't think anyone should be very surprised to see NTFS slower than EXT4.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    The disk I/O benchmarks would be much more interesting if you also reported CPU utilization.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enrox View Post
    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...
    Maybe it's accelerated on Linux?

    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!
    Was this emulated on Windows?

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Was this emulated on Windows?
    Yep. The benchmarking software does not contain a Windows port, it needs Cygwin, thus making it considerably slower.

  8. #28

    Default

    Btw. do some SMP benchmarks, please. This should be very interesting to see.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    Yep. The benchmarking software does not contain a Windows port, it needs Cygwin, thus making it considerably slower.
    Ok, it will be great to see native applications used.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    987

    Default

    How about benchmarks of some other file system operations. Like creating and deleting complex directory structures with tens of thousands of files. I'd love to see how windows copes (or fails to cope) with that

Posting Permissions

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