Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

For some results that are more interesting than the recent RHEL / Oracle / CentOS / Scientific Linux comparison, here are some benchmarks pitting Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 against a development snapshot of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on three different systems.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17103

[frantaylor]

does anyone have any insight into the performance differences? gcc versions, compiler settings, file systems, kernel differences, what do you think? I am intrigued.

[blind]

Phoronix: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

For some results that are more interesting than the recent RHEL / Oracle / CentOS / Scientific Linux comparison, here are some benchmarks pitting Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 against a development snapshot of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on three different systems.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17103

Totally misread the headline, thought it said Redhat Linux 6.2, not that your article wasn't good but it would have been more interesting to see how well old-school stacked up.

[mistvieh]

RHEL6 is mostly based on Fedora 13, which was released in early 2010. Now it's 2012, so you can figure it out quite easily

RHEL is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge.

[frantaylor]

RHEL6 is mostly based on Fedora 13, which was released in early 2010. Now it's 2012, so you can figure it out quite easily

RHEL is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge.

"LTS" is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge, too!

I am looking for particular reasons, not vague product descriptions.

Many of these benchmarks are equivalent and some go to RHEL so apparently newer is not always better.

Again it is far more complex than you make it seem.

RHEL 6.2 is very recent so your age argument is bogus, RedHat backports lots of stuff, esp. performance enhancements

[mistvieh]

"LTS" is supposed to be rock solid and not bleeding edge, too!

When did that ever happen? *scnr


Point is: Red Hat does not bump Software Version throughout the support cycle because of certified software running on it. That means rhel includes software which was released in 2010 and earlier + some security fixes.

For instance: kernel version is 2.6.32 and not 3.2 or whatever ubuntu will be using. Firefox is 3.6. GCC is 4.4. Even ubuntu lts bumps software versions throughout the release cycle.

[mistvieh]

Wherever my last post went to...

Red Hat does not bump software versions throughout the release cycle. There ist certified software for rhel, which relies on this.

For instance: kernel is 2.6.32, gcc is at 4.4.6 and so on.

Rad Hat backports security fixes, not features! 6.2 is not very "recent", it has the most recent security fixes! Kernel is still 2.6.32 and that wont change. They sometimes include some drivers from future kernels, but nothing more.
So: codebase is from 2010.

[Alliancemd]

You should really not make any more of this comparisons between Red Hat and Ubuntu latest release. First, Red Hat tries to hold the API and ABI for developers and they have to run on something older. Second, you don't want to start a war between Red Hat and Ubuntu cause all the performance Ubuntu has is because of Red Hat developers work...

[whitecat]

Wherever my last post went to...

Red Hat does not bump software versions throughout the release cycle. There ist certified software for rhel, which relies on this.

For instance: kernel is 2.6.32, gcc is at 4.4.6 and so on.

Rad Hat backports security fixes, not features! 6.2 is not very "recent", it has the most recent security fixes! Kernel is still 2.6.32 and that wont change. They sometimes include some drivers from future kernels, but nothing more.
So: codebase is from 2010.

You should read the RHEL 6.1/6.2 release notes. You will see many 2.6.33 to 3.0 kernel features (and drivers) backported.

[sleinen]

The Apache results sure stand out because of the performance difference (Ubuntu 12.04 running circles around RHEL 6.2). Is this due to different Apache versions, or different default configurations?