Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Benchmarks Of Debian Etch, Lenny & Squeeze

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of Debian Etch, Lenny & Squeeze

    With Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" set to be released in the coming months, we have decided to run a set of benchmarks looking at the performance of Debian 6.0 across different sub-systems relative to the performance of Debian 5.0 "Lenny" and Debian 4.0 "Etch" to see how this new release may stack up.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15459
    Thanks Michael for testing - Debian!

    Do have any idea how it would stack up against Ubuntu? It wasn't apparent from the article if the hardware was the same as when Ubuntu is tested.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    Default Thanks but the fish aren't necessary

    Wodim, EGlibC, Ice Weasel, and SELINUX.

    I don't like being forced to use something.

    Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, ...

    Reminds me of the old kingdom.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montreal Canada
    Posts
    55

    Default Statistically significantly different.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of Debian Etch, Lenny & Squeeze

    With Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" set to be released in the coming months, we have decided to run a set of benchmarks looking at the performance of Debian 6.0 across different sub-systems relative to the performance of Debian 5.0 "Lenny" and Debian 4.0 "Etch" to see how this new release may stack up.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15459
    Generally, we should use more than 1 system to do performance comparisons typically with several machines, (at least 20, to get statistically significant results).

    The preceding article shows results from a completed product versus a new version that may have bug fixes, increased security, etc. Therefore for the more reliable system, we should expect longer path lengths.

    I am not saying the results are not indicative, but I believe that repeated tests would provide different numbers.

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
  •