LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-01-2012, 02:39 AM   #1
s1aw0
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Posts: 17

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Phoronix' benchmarks


Hello everybody,

Phoronix has published results of their wide comparison of performance of a number of distributions, including Slack-14.0 beta: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...xdistros&num=1 Sadly, Slack doesn't seem to be among the fastest in their tests. But I believe the tests performed say little to a rank-and-file slacker. Can anyone please comment on the results and possibly suggest how to improve performance of Slack if it is really that modest (though personally I think it's great but I haven't tried anything but Arch from the list of distros tested).
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:32 AM   #2
nixblog
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Posts: 426

Rep: Reputation: 52
Saw this article earlier and Slackware is looking sad against the others in that test but then, it's only a beta and not the final release. Also, I would rather have reliability over speed any day but speed is also nice too. Good to see Arch perform well, as it usually does so no surprise there. To be honest, I was quite impressed by the figures that CentOS returned in this test too.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 09:29 AM   #3
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
I don't trust Phoronix benchmarks. I have tried them myself and they are not accurate in some cases (I benchmarked filesystem performance). I am going to test the final Slackware 14 and maybe Arch and see if the benchmarks are true. I just have to remember to do it.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-01-2012, 10:34 AM   #4
mrascii
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Location: on the Net
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 100

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I didn't see in the article which Slackware kernel was being benchmarked. That could make a big difference in the results and like H_TeXMeX_H mentioned benchmarks don't always relate to real world performance.

DNA
AKA mrascii

Last edited by mrascii; 08-01-2012 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Rewrote first sentence for clarity
 
Old 08-01-2012, 10:34 AM   #5
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 2,625

Rep: Reputation: 448Reputation: 448Reputation: 448Reputation: 448Reputation: 448
please remember that those benchmarks are hardware dependent, so it may have different results based on whose hardware are being used despite the OS being used.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 03:42 PM   #6
Martinus2u
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 353

Rep: Reputation: 56
Huh? differences in Dhrystone can only be attributed to different compilers or different hardware. Obviously the 5 operating systems were run on 5 different machines, and obviously those machines had very different performance despite looking similar on paper. shame on phoronix.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 05:20 PM   #7
nixblog
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Posts: 426

Rep: Reputation: 52
Perhaps a set of real world tests based on a VM install would be better as a comparison?
 
Old 08-01-2012, 06:56 PM   #8
adriv
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Diessen, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 661

Rep: Reputation: 38
The benchmarks were performed by SW 14 on XFCE. I know that I am stepping on some toes here, but in my experience XFCE (on SW) is slower than KDE. Sure, the start-up of the Desktop is faster, but after that...
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:01 PM   #9
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 3,576

Rep: Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806
Hold on, I just realised this, they were using three systems for the test? I had assumed they installed each distro fresh on the same machine and carried out the tests that way. As it stands I know now Phoronix benchmarks aren't worth my time reading.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:09 PM   #10
nixblog
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Posts: 426

Rep: Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriv View Post
The benchmarks were performed by SW 14 on XFCE. I know that I am stepping on some toes here, but in my experience XFCE (on SW) is slower than KDE. Sure, the start-up of the Desktop is faster, but after that...
Not sure about XFCE on Slackware but I would say the it's a good bit faster than KDE based on my experience.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:15 PM   #11
adriv
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Diessen, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 661

Rep: Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixblog View Post
Not sure about XFCE on Slackware but I would say the it's a good bit faster than KDE based on my experience.
That's certainly true for the distro's that I've tried, except Slackware (YMMV).
In fact, I've always found XFCE's speed disappointing on SW.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:19 PM   #12
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 332

Rep: Reputation: 100Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Hold on, I just realised this, they were using three systems for the test? I had assumed they installed each distro fresh on the same machine and carried out the tests that way. As it stands I know now Phoronix benchmarks aren't worth my time reading.
I couldn't figure out if this were the case that they were different machines, but it looked like so to me. But people are echo'ing it. I would call these comparisons bogus. This isn't the first time I've seen bogus comparisons from Phoronix.

Even if something is found, I don't consider what Phoronix does particularly interesting since it most of the benchmarks I could care less about in a real world sense.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:29 PM   #13
273
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 3,576

Rep: Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806Reputation: 806
Looking at the image of system specifications it is at least two different systems (e.g. different sound cards?), making the comparison bogus and the site suspect.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:42 PM   #14
nixblog
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Posts: 426

Rep: Reputation: 52
Perhaps someone wants to come up with a series of real world tests here like opening large files, batch processes and say image manipulation in GIMP etc.. Stuff that most ordinary users and admins may perfom on a daily basis.

Also try to narrow down the base software so at least they may have the same DE and core apps involved in testing plus, absolutely stock installs - not tweaking kernels or stuff like that. Then, either test them as virtuals or use the same hardware (as stated).

A good test choice might well be Slackware (KDE), Chakra Linux (Arch based KDE), Kubuntu, openSUSE and PCBSD (FreeBSD with KDE) as a wildcard - preferably with the same release of KDE too.
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:43 PM   #15
disturbed1
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,133
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 223Reputation: 223Reputation: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixblog View Post
Perhaps a set of real world tests based on a VM install would be better as a comparison?
I have never been in favor of Phoronix's "Distro" nor OS (Mac/Win) benchmarks. It only proves that the settings he chose give those results with that hardware using that specific application.

Last time I used their benchmarking application, I noticed it did not always use system applications. Like with ogg-vorbis, it compiled and used it's own version of ogg-vorbis. So in essence, this only compares the differences between the kernel and tool chain options. And to be honest, there should be little to no differences between distro's that use the same versions. If there is -- something is drastically wrong. Either with the installation, test matter/execution, PEBKAC, or the distro royally fubar'd something up.

Benchmarks can be useful for some people, for some things.
Like benchmarking your own PC to see if that recently upgraded GPU driver made a difference and gave you an extra 5FPS.
Benchmarking the difference between the vorbis stack compiled at stock settings, and -O3 -march=native -mtune=native.

I can admit from my own personal experience -- it's takes the same amount of time for oggenc to encode 60minutes on Arch Linux and Slackware, using the exact same PC. vpxenc and x264 also encode at the same fps on Arch Linux and Slackware.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: A Tour Of The Phoronix Office LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-10-2012 02:11 AM
Phoronix Benchmarks and Slackware... Alexvader Slackware 13 04-25-2010 08:39 AM
LXer: Please Your Wife With Phoronix, Really LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-14-2009 11:11 PM
Phoronix Test Suite anupamjamatia Linux - Software 1 11-13-2008 09:36 AM
LXer: Phoronix To Support Solaris OS LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-20-2007 12:01 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration