Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Kernel Benchmarks, 2.6.24-2.6.29

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the impressive-span dept.

Operating Systems 38

Ashmash writes "Phoronix has posted benchmarks of the Linux kernel from versions 2.6.24 to 2.6.29. They ran a number of desktop benchmarks from the Phoronix Test Suite on each of the six kernels on an Ubuntu host with an Intel Core 2 processor. The points they make with the new Linux 2.6.29 kernel are 1. there's a regression with 7-Zip compression 2. OpenSSL has improved significantly 3. a regression drastically impacting the SQLite performance has been fixed 4. the OpenMP GraphicsMagick performance is phenomenally better with this new kernel. In all of their other tests, the kernel performance was the roughly the same."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's clearly Tuz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27320475)

The new mascot.

Why no comparison to OS X? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27320895)

Are Lin$ux users afraid of something?

Re:Why no comparison to OS X? (5, Insightful)

wombat21 (1378555) | more than 5 years ago | (#27321149)

Comparison to OS X purely at the kernel level ? I'd prefer to see real-world benchmarks (a contentious area in itself..) across a range of operating systems, using identical hardware, but it would only spark endless debate that the methodology favoured one OS over another. Personally, I use all 3 and each has its pros and cons : such a benchmark would have to make a pretty compelling case for me to abandon any of my currently installed operating systems.

Re:Why no comparison to OS X? (2, Informative)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27322233)

I think you're missing [] an article.

Besides, how do you expect a different binary to be fair? At least in this test the only variable was the kernel, whereas on OSX you have the kernel, application specific code, and the compiler to consider. They can't exactly copy the ELF binaries and libraries straight over from Linux.

Re:Why no comparison to OS X? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27327401)

They can't exactly copy the ELF binaries and libraries straight over from Linux

They can to *BSD or Solaris though, and that would make for an interesting comparison. Last time I saw anyone do this was a few years ago, and FreeBSD was around 5-10% faster running Linux binaries than Linux was, although I wouldn't be surprised if this has changed now.

Re:Why no comparison to OS X? (1)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329155)

FreeBSD was around 5-10% faster running Linux binaries than Linux was, although I wouldn't be surprised if this has changed now.

I would, actually. If history [] is any indication, the operating system gets slower as time goes on. Note that I actually have oprofiled some of these areas, and it's frequently due to things like processor ACPI enablement (processor sleeping) and security improvements like stack randomization.

No, it's just Moronix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27327673)

Where they compare 5-year-old 32-bit Solaris x86 GCC to new 64-bit Linux GCC [] , then crow about how fast Linux is when compared to Solaris:

Our build of Ubuntu 9.04 was depending upon the Linux 2.6.28 kernel, GNOME 2.25.5, X Server 1.6.0 RC 1, GCC 4.3.3, and we opted to use the EXT4 file-system. OpenSolaris 2008.11 is based upon Solaris Nevada Build 101b, uses the 5.11 kernel with X Server 1.3, GCC 3.4.3, and the ZFS file-system.

Heaven forbid that Phoronix would benchmark an up-to-date version of Sun Studio compiler on Solaris. No, they use an old version of GCC.

As I said, Moronix.

first (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27320899)

first post!

The OpenSSL benchmark (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27321141)

I find it difficult to believe that the 2x gain in OpenSSL performance for 4K RSA private key operations is solely due to this new kernel. Such operations are, at the core, just CPU-intensive modular exponentiations. Unless the kernel has become significantly better at making use of several cores (or processors) to parallelize such operations, I don't see how that can happen.

Re:The OpenSSL benchmark (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27327447)

There are lots of variables that may affect this. The new kernel may be preempting the CPU-intensive process less frequently, reducing TLB and cache churn, and context switching overhead. I don't think RSA should be using the FPU, but if it is (even for one operation in the 10ms quantum) then switching to lazy FPU context switching would give a performance increase (or, to put it another way, not doing lazy FPU context switching - either by accident or design - would give a performance penalty).

I didn't read TFA (obviously), but on an SMP system, particularly an AMD machine, there are a few other issues that may arise. Without good processor affinity, the OpenSSL process may be being swapped between two cores, increasing cache misses (which can easily slow down a process a lot). The memory allocation routines may have been allocating memory from the memory controller attached to one processor while running the code on the other, increasing memory latency (and, therefore, cache miss cost).

In short, there's nothing a kernel can do to speed up CPU-bound operations, but there is a lot it can do to slow them down, and stopping doing things that slow down operations looks a lot like doing things that speed them up.

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27321153)

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Reports
- This just in, March 23 2009 Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund []

- Russia too: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read. []

- President Barak "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption, Rahm Emanuel (Radical authoritarian Statist whose father was part of the Murderous Civilian Killing Israeli Terrorist Organization known as IRGUN), Connected to Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat), Connected to Ayers, a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom, Preacher Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a black-elitist who wants all the people who largely "pay the freight" to suffer, 31 million on food stamps, more blacks are in prison and on food-stamps per capita than anyone else. The problem with Wright is simply this: the facts are "racist."
- Obama: Racist, AIPAC-bootlicker, Corrupted to the bone Chicago style and a Traitor to the US Constitution and a Liar whose real "legal" name could very well be Barry Sotero and an Indonesian citizen (The US does not allow plural citizenship) (If you care, not that it matters anymore under a Lawless Authoritarian Totalitarian Regime, you can see more here at an aggregator; [] )
  - Raytheon lobbyist in Pentagon, lots lobbyists getting exemptions even though he promised not to have them.
- Goldman Sachs insider second in command at Treasury. Bumbling tax cheat idiot in "command" of Treasury with 17 positions unfilled as of late March 2009.
- Cabinet has had several nominees and appointees with multiple tax fraud issues.
- Lied about having a new degree of accountability and a SUNSHINE period of new laws, he has signed bills with little or no review at as promised.
- Appointed a second amendment violating Rich-pardoning treasonist Eric Holder as AG, the top cop of the USA, a man who helped a fugitive evade justice.
- Has not put a dime in for a single new nuclear power plant but wants to help bridges and roads to promote more driving.
- Obama, Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel have a LOT to hide. They literally lived next to each other, Rahm had (until being Chairman Obama's Chief of staff) Blagojevich's old federal congressional seat. Blagojevich helped Chairman "The Teleprompter" Obama cheat his way to the Illinois senate by getting other candidates thrown off the ballot in Illinois. Why do you think Blagojevich was so mad? Obama DID owe him, big time. Rahm and Obama are using Blagojevich and trying to cut his head off to keep him away.
- Tony Rezko, Iraqi Arms Dealer Nahdmi Auchi, and of course Aiham Alsammarae. Chairman "The Teleprompter" Hussein Obama is so corrupted its a joke.
- Fools and "useful idiots" twist the pie charts by leaving welfare, workfare, interest on debt, social security, Medicare and Medicaid out and focusing only on non-whole "discretionary" pie charts.
2007 high level pie chart, Federal Budget, USA []
2009 Pie chart, detailed, Federal Budget, USA []
- Chairman Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive (especially against China, India, East Europe/Russia). This will be a huge disaster and change you can believe in will strap you and your grandkids with more debt. No taxation without representation? Obama is spending money for the next two-three generations and they can't even vote yet, or even have been born.
- An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state, why should the taxpayers (plebian citizen-slaves of a police state).
- The spending going on now vastly eclipses all previous spending. In fact, the massive trillion plus debts is a thing of the 80's onwards. Congress signs the checks, remember that Year after year, as egregious as the pentagon spending is, that the social spending is completely a waste of money and it is unfunded over the long term. Eisenhower built the interstates, the US could build a new power infrastructure with this money but instead is being pissed into creating more of an entitlement system that is STILL unfunded, and without massive poll-taxes and far more aggressive progressive taxes, could NEVER be funded.
- The budgeting being done today were recently reported by a non-partisan auditing commission will lead to about 10 TRILLION in new debt over the next 10 years. Obama is going to double the national debt while doing nothing to address the unfunded debt obligations of Social Security.
- Clinton appointed David Walker of the GAO, he quit, the unfunded debt obligations have rendered the USA insolvent according to accounting standards.
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion []
US Public Debt Unfunded Debt Obligations []
- Most of the world population gets NOTHING from their governments, or a very bare minimum or services that benefit only the upper echelons of society. However, the liar Chairman Obama says we need his universal "state-hospital" rationed health care to be competitive. Bull. China and India give nothing, and they are the biggest threat to the American worker. By forcing healthcare and higher taxes, Americans will be less competitive.
- If you think 60% tax rates end to end (income, accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, excise tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, misc internet sales tax and many more taxes that I can't recall at the moment) will make the US competitive, along with compulsory programs to provide everyone with health care is going to make the US competitive in the age of India and China, you are a joke.
- As the US nationalizes (read: rations healthcare) to the least common denominator of affordability without regard to efficacy, people with money will simply look into medical tourism so those with money can go to medical parks in India and get real health care. Those who have lived in Canada or in the UK can tell you "free" healthcare is NOT a panacea. If you think this, you are again, a useful idiot. The NHS in the UK has given bad blood and Hepatitis and AIDS blood to people, and Jade Goody who just died was misdiagnosed twice resulting in her death (She was all cleared twice of cervical cancer which she just died of). The NHS in the UK is not able to be sued or held accountable. Neither will Chairman Obama's rationed health care service for America.
- Sorry to bust the socialist bubble-lie, but support of these types of policies will simply lower the standard of living in the USA, particularly for the middle class. At least at the end of the Eisenhower projects the USA got roads to show for the spending, and with this new spending, the USA could have built power plants that get the USA out of the middle east, but the age of government for the sake of government is upon us, and the useful idiots line up and believe empty promises.
The pentagon (and Bechtel, Kroll, Bluewater, Halliburton, etc) could get less than half of what they get today, but that will fix nothing fundamental in terms of government spending. It is simply not enough to make a difference when compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security entitlements.
See: YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy []
- If Obama thinks its ok to lie to 300 million people about being able to "take care of them" without even being honest about what that care would look like, then being an idiot and believing in Obama is for you.
- The head of the IRS and the head of the Treasury, Geithner, is a Tax Cheat
- Lied about no lobbyists - their numbers are growing.
- The US Government already have over 50% of the budget on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security. Socialists: Good job on that one, its working great. Solution to the current near-collapse-due-to-over-spending: add more unfunded entitlements!
- You Socialist-liars can break my spirit and my financial back to force me to "need" a federal government that is turning this country into a police state and turn it into a quasi-socialist lie, but I will, I must put up a fight. I have kids to educate and feed, and the stuff you sell (which is failing to various degrees everywhere else as implemented) is simply forcing a culture of failure on a once great, libertarian free country.
- I will not be complacent with your "change," and there will be a point where civil war will become an option. See how hard you can push before you get it. How much more than half can the truly productive workers in this country afford to pay. Keep pushing to find out how to start a civil war.
- The socialist-lie of a plan will not work, its not fundable, it WILL destroy the currency to fund it, and its really as simple as this: if this insanity is funded by borrowing from the US's economic and military adversaries then Obama and his socialist cabal is NOT fit to administrate society. Rome fell. Kings who mis-manged their treasuries all fell. Every example of unhinged spending leads to the same result: systemic collapse.
- Obama and his sycophantic lunatics would want to have a civil war to get Chairman Obama's way and force the socialist-lie system on my already tax paying law abiding ass. And as far as "no new taxes" for those under 250k, its a lie, the tax is called inflation, which is set to begin just about now that the Chinese wont want the USA's worthless treasuries to fund the socialist-lie fantasy (one that COMMUNIST China doesn't even try and sell to its people!)
- Chairman Obama's numbers don't add up. There is a $59 trillion dollar hole (UFDO) in social security alone. AIG $150 billion here, TARP $350 billion there. $800 billion for a highly dubious stimulus package. Another one on the way. $59 trillion hole in the balance sheet IGNORED. China saying they aren't going to buy treasuries, Clinton clamoring to find buyers now. $3.6 trillion dollar budget, potential military action on Mexico, Iran still a "terrorist state" at the behest of the AIPAC, spending up, dollar about to fall, inflation over time since Breton Woods extremely easy to document, yet, the socialist-liars question when the numbers (the Federal Government numbers) simply don't add up to the point where if the US-GOV was a company it would be insolvent.
  -How dare the taxpayers question what Chairman Obama's drastic spending increases are going to do to the purchasing power of our savings because Chairman Obama wants to recklessly spend and try to maintain and American empire AND guarantee a standard of living, and Chairman Obama doesn't even want to build a single nuclear power plant to do it? Chairman Obama must be a complete and total lunatic moron.
- Obama is either a negligent idiot or an unhinged maniac with delusional fantasies. Meanwhile, Chainman Obama's tax dodging Treasury Secretary has 17 unfilled positions, the Treasury Dept. isn't even functioning at this point.
- "General welfare" in the constitution was, according to the man who wrote it, Madison, meant to be extremely limited in scope. The federal government per the constitution doesn't even have the enumerated POWER to deal with economic messes. A lot of these "POWERS" were created while there is a crisis to dupe the public into accepting an un-constitutional authoritarian regime as the government and to usurp authority over the people.
- The USA is a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to eat a sheep. Also a constitutional republic isn't about using a barely-majority or a plurality to stuff your (un-fundable disastrous) crap down the disenfranchised other-half's throat.
- With Obama's authoritarian corrupted criminal (aiding and abetting a criminal in flight of prosecution, Rich case) Eric Holder in charge, we won't have our inalienable and enumerated rights to firearms much longer. For a constitutional law expert, Obama must have never read the federalist papers or he would simply hand himself as a traitor.
- The arbitrary expansion of "general welfare" is not only unconstitutional, it may very well lead to a serious conflict on the issue.
- Here is a debate on general welfare and how stuff like this came to pass, but was clearly no intended by the authors of the document of root law.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" (In reference to the general welfare clause)
So strongly did the founders believe that "general welfare" wouldn't be expanded as written:
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison's point. (That the "general welfare" clause was "clearly" nota free pass for government)
Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law a relief act, for instance wasn't covered by any of these powers, it was unconstitutional.
"why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hamilton goes on to argue that making Amendments (e.g., enumerating Free speech, press and assembly) and enumerating the 'right' would have the following effect:
(A bill of rights) "would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down. "
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison [The US Supreme Court has found the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution to be much more elastic than did Mr. Madison. But as the "author of the Constitution," what does he know?]
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...--The Declaration of Independence
- Wrong, monetizing failures causes more. Japan showed us this for decades. But hey, Chairman Obama thinks you can fix a problem DECADES in the making with a quick fixer-upper, he is screwed in the head.
- The complaints are with the Federal government (in general) since Breton Woods. The Federal Government and Obama's minions STILL didn't listen to David Walker, a Clinton appointee and former head of the GAO. This isn't about political parties anymore morons!
- Show me a single federal budget that was less than the previous. If this $3.6T budget goes, its never coming back barring systemic collapse.
- The United States Federal Government, The United States Federal Reserve, and the banks which were enabled to continue down reckless paths by a quasi government agency known as the Federal Reserve whose actions are not subject to congress and whose members are unelected. This situation is untenable and unconstitutional.
- Every inflationary road taken in history ends in collapse. Keynesian policies are widely regarded as no longer workable.
- Inflation is a tax: What ignorant tax and spenders don't take into account here is the relative percentages of people's wealth (both net and gross) and the costs of owning and maintaining houses, cars, standards of living.
- Inflation via deficit spending is going to make it such that you will be paying a lot more by percentage of your income to maintain a given standard of living. Obama's arguments are so poorly thought out and seek to blame "Republicans" for the mess, its really simply laughable - the needs cleanup now, not worsening.
- You can't spend your way out of a hole if the creditors (e.g. China) start telling the USA they won't buy. It is that simple. Now America starts to have to collateralize the debt with assets. The USA will be selling off chunks of American assets to back the new debt. One day, it may even be necessary to sell Alaska back to Russia because no one will take greenbacks to prop up a failing version of a modern Rome.
- Ah, here we go with the Matthew Lesko arguments. []
Interest rates were on the rise before the government stepped in with free money for everyone (the fine print of course indicate massive strings attached).
Other economies, for example, India, have the central rates set to far more reasonable/realistic rates (at the moment ~ 8+%), which is still tends to be too low, but shows that if you need someone else capital you need to pay a premium for it, and given that capital is in short supply, it would stand to reason that a premium must be charged for it.
The problem is the unrealistic growth rates of mature economies don't allow for profiting via growth projections (rather than simply earning money). So the government steps in, turns on the free money spigot, gets the interest rates for savings down in the 1-2% range while diluting the value of the whole currency in order to prop up dying companies that ran the business like a Madhoff Ponzi scheme.
- The Republicans aren't solely responsible for the crisis as Obama's minions would have you believe, congress is (no particular congress), the Executive of the US government (no particular one) and the US Federal Reserve System are all at fault.
- Fundamentally, the government is trying to fix the prices of various things to "make it all work." This pulling on the invisible hand is a fools venture. It was predicted long ago the housing collapse (and those, such as myself, in the know, wished while realizing the housing collapse coming that we were wrong for everyone's sake - but the truth is the truth) . It may be that the Austrian (von Mises) economists will ultimately be proven right.
- We are a nation of partially educated whiney grabby idiots, and we got the government that represents this. The Chinese, India and other up and coming nations will show no mercy for this arrogant abuse of our status as the world's forex reserves.
- War and asset sales will continue to be the only option for this scheme until it is corrected at the core. And to say that the government has already averted a depression by doing what they did (most of the monies injected wont be "felt" for some time), is just arrogance and stupidity. Price fixing prolonged the Great Depression. Price-fixing (or attempting to) houses will do the same, but probably worse.
- Obama's minions simply don't care if the US is bankrupted and rendered insolvent, they just want a say in how its done, presumably to "feel safe." Rather selfish.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." AND "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (Possibly Richard Jackson)

- Everyone better realize that inflation will pay a major role in funding un-fundable fantasies, wiping the savers and the middle class out. The problem is, that other countries are growing tired of making our Federal Reserve notes worth something by buying our debt as treasuries. Obama's minions talk about spending, but in order to "get what YOU want" you will sell debt to potential economic and military adversaries? Real bright. What's really sad is that despite David Walker being an authority on these issues, people refuse to even watch him and listen to what he is saying.
- On the success of Canada and its form of Socialism: A huge country like Canada with massive amounts of uranium and tar sands and natural resources and a huge land mass with a scant 30 million people is an order of magnitude less of a problem to manage than a country with 10x its population, a serious leaky southern border, backfiring aggressive foreign policy, particularly with Iran, and the US is competing with countries like India and China whose middle classes are larger than the US's entire population. The top 5 students in every Indian and Chinese primary school out numbers all the kids in primary school in the US. Canada is a idyllic island, the USA is front and center in an all out economic and political clash of ideologies.
- Cap and trade (and pollution control for solving global problems) will never work unless the top 10 countries in the world (in terms of both GDP and manufacturing capacity and population) are on board. Period end. If the world doesn't quickly move to nuclear now and fusion shortly, it is OVER possibly not if every home on the planet gets a wind vane, but that seems unlikely to happen (since its possible now).
- Keynes calls it "the paradox of thrift" and suggested that policies forcing people not to save is a "good idea." The guy wanted people spending all the time, or if he didn't, he never conveyed that to his protégés well enough for them to not do what they are doing. Right now the plebeians in the US are actually stashing cash, and everyone from Obama to the media is trying to get people to spend spend spend. The best thing for the long term is for people to prepare for the coming hell, not set out with no reserves.
- I have seen Keynes invoked to justify nearly every bad move in the past decade, and its warming up to be a potential currency collapse, the collapse of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve notes, and a collapse of the NYSE. And then they invoke Keynes to suggest the best way out of the mess is to spend out of an already near-critically debt massed black hole.
- A house is run like a town is run like a country or business is run like a state is run like a government. If there are things the government is doing that would either force your home into bankruptcy or into jail via fraud charges, then the government and banks shouldn't be operating in that fashion. A certain degree of stretchy liquidity is in order, but in terms of percent of GDP, there is no way of justifying what they US has now.
- Iceland failed at 850 percent debt to GDP. The US is at 350 and rising. It is not a good thing at all.
- What is happening to the dollar as a forex standard. []
- March 19, 2009 C-SPAN - "Let's Quit Destroying Our Dollar!" []
- HR 1207 (A bill to make the Fed more accountable and to answer questions regarding the dollar policy) []

Title: Obama sidetracked by fiscal mess, but presses on []
"Being heard above the din may prove difficult. Lawmakers are wrangling over taxing people who got big bonuses and worrying the president's budget could generate $9.3 trillion in red ink over the next decade."
- Kremlin to pitch new global currency []
Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency

Holy crap, even the Russians and Chinese get it. Strange days are here.

well, we knew it all along -- almost no difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27321169)

wake me up when you have an article that has some useful information that can drive my imagination or

i can't get no ...
no no no

Is Phoronix even a credible source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27321245)

I'm sure there are performance gains in the new kernal, but is Phoronix even considered a credible source for benchmarks?

I remember one where they benchmarked the new opteron to compare operating systems but used different compiler versions.

Looked at a Java benchmark recently and they were using different JDK versions on different OS's.

I really am not sure if they know what they are doing. Can't you wait till anandtech, tom's hardware or some better site posts results?

Re:Is Phoronix even a credible source? (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27322481)

Yeah, as you point out, some benchmarks on phoronix have been pretty sloppy.

I think it's a great site for some purposes (where else can you find headlines on X development?), but I doubt many take their benchmarking seriously.

While bad benchmarking is hardly rare, it's kind of disappointing in the case of phoronix, which is obviously aiming at a more technically savvy audience than most sites are, and often does benchmarks (such as this one) that are much more interesting to the FOSS crowd than the typical mouth-breather "win7 vs. xp" stuff you see elsewhere.

Re:Is Phoronix even a credible source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27322759)

the benchmarks on tom's hardware will give you an overall result like this: "Linux kernel is faster because it's running on an Intel. Oh! ALL Hail our silicon overlord!"

I still don't get why the benchmarks from TH are so valuable since they are obviously funded by MS and Intel advertising.

Cure for my insomnia (0, Redundant)

fat_mike (71855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27321249)

1. So I should just stick with gzip or bzip2?

2. It went from 31.47 "signs per second" to 62.77. So the older kernel take one second less than the new one? News!

3. Sorry, this is the part where I started nodding off.

4. zzzzzzzz

Wait, huh! Sorry, other than those four points every graph was within like .00001 signs or seconds or iterations of each other.

Surely it is the year of the linux desktop!

I'd like to see these results compared to a Windows machine.

benchmark snd-hda-intel sound recording too! (2, Interesting)

multi io (640409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27321311)

Sure, it may have gone from working perfectly in 2.6.21 to not producing a beep [] in 2.6.28, but look how fast it has become! Priorities! :-P

Why dang it? (4, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27321397)

Neat. They benchmarked a bunch of stuff and some real changes obviously took place. I can't help but be comforted by their conclusion (paraphrased): "Stuff changed."

How about telling me why they changed.

  • Why did 2.6.29 double it's speed doing SSL signings?
  • Why did all the graphics tests speed up some?
  • Why did SQLite performance bomb for 3 releases?

  • What was the deal with 7-zip performance changing so much? What is it stressing that other tests aren't that cause it to vary?

There are reasons for these things. You could test and find them out. You could read the mailing lists and see if someone else posted explanations (others must have noticed the SQLite thing).

Heck, look at this list of new features and make guesses. I'd prefer "the newly added HyperScheduler v3.732 is probably the source of this" than the article's "things got faster, neat."

That's why I love LWN [] and the kernel page so much. They post why things changed, or at least reasonable theories.

Re:Why dang it? (4, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#27321723)

I'd like to know why, too. Drastic changes in performance may mean that faster ways to do a thing were discovered. It may also mean that codepaths are being skipped that are essential to things functioning correctly. Remember the Debian OpenSSL bug?

That's why I'd like to know why SSL signing is so much faster under the new kernel. Seeing a 2x improvement makes me wonder if something's been screwed up that could compromise my certs.

Re:Why dang it? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27323667)

Hey guys. Michael (Larabel, whom owns and runs Phoronix) isn't omnipotent and he does a lot to keep his site running, OS's and tasks benchmarked, and news up to date on top of extra projects like the Phoronix Benchmark Suite of which he has brought togethor almost exclusively by himself. Do yourselves a favour and do some research, and maybe even post it to Phoronix for Michael to update. Assist him and, subsequently, the rest of us to reduce the number of questions.

Re:Why dang it? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27325715)

So we're supposed to do his research for him? He's the one writing the article, so I think it's reasonable to expect him to at least do a little further research into the performance of the thing he is testing.

That is the question... (2, Informative)

mtippett (110279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27323589)

The Phoronix benchmarking is intended to provide you the answers as to why. It is to highlight the stuff that has happened.

If performance management is going on within the kernel community, then this shouldn't come up as a shock. The whole purpose of independent testing is that you see something that looks out of place, investigate and resolve. A perfect example is [] phoronix article, that showed that SuSE was trailing. This causes this [] discussion.

The question and answer don't need to be provided by the same voice. It is when you have someone questioning, and then someone answering, then you have a discussion, then finally you have progress.

To make it worse, there is virtually no reason that any number of the organizations supporting the leading developers can't invest a small amount of infrastructure and run the tests themselves. Phoronix Test Suite is absolutely trivial to use. The amount of "software development in autopilot" is frightening, this applies equally to Open Source as it does to Proprietary.

Re:That is the question... (1)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27324133)

What's so special about that example you gave?

openSuSE's disk I/O was slower because they enabled an option that the other didn't. Not enabling that option "runs the risk of severe filesystem corruption during a crash". Looks like they changed it to be like the other distros so they wouldn't look so bad during the benchmark.

That's nice. Compromise stability for performance. This is the type of stupid crap that makes people wonder... Gee, why is such and such so much faster?

The other issue was already reported as a bug on X11.

So the benchmarks didn't expose anything that wasn't already known.

Maybe it's a good benchmark suite, I haven't really looked at it, but maybe they should find other people to run it based on some of the comments here.

Re:That is the question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27324497)

The point of the example was that SuSE had not conciously made the trade off. They didn't realize that they has made the safe option had that level of performance delta.

Unfortunately, there are too few sites or groups doing benchmarking and so we are left with decisions made with qualitative vs quantative measurements.

Re:That is the question... (1)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27324743)

What makes you think SuSE unconsciously made the trade off? The default setting is to have barriers disabled. They would have had to override the default behavior.

Re:That is the question... (1)

oasisbob (460665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27324555)

openSuSE's disk I/O was slower because they enabled an option that the other didn't. Not enabling that option "runs the risk of severe filesystem corruption during a crash". Looks like they changed it to be like the other distros so they wouldn't look so bad during the benchmark.

That's nice. Compromise stability for performance. This is the type of stupid crap that makes people wonder... Gee, why is such and such so much faster?

It's not quite that simple.

See that openSUSE bug [] :

Since I wrote this, I came across comments by Andrew Morton, and a thread discussing barriers and why he refused a patch to make them a default. The sequential layout of journal, in general means the disk does the writes in right order, except when wrapping round (relatively rare); meaning in general running without barriers is a problem only for the unfortunate.

If I found myself making a different decision than Andrew Morton, I might revisit that choice as well.

Re:That is the question... (1)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27324925)

If you bought a new oven and it had an option to reduce gas consumption but in "relatively rare" situations it could explode while you were cooking, what setting would you leave it on?

I've seen other things like this over the years, and that's why I am now deploying applications on Solaris. Like all software it's not completely bug free, but I haven't had any problems, and their philosophy seems to be to not intentionally make decisions that could blow people up.

Re:That is the question... (1)

mtippett (110279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330003)

Judging by your posts and your handle, you work in or around servers - a lot.

You would probably be aware that security, stability, and all such things are a set of tradeoffs of risks and benefits/costs.

You can make a system 100% secure, but it may not be useable. You can make a system five 9's stable, but you have to pay for it. You make the assessment of the risk (in this case data corruption), against the benefit/costs (double the speed in some cases).

SuSE seemed to have made the assessment of risk without understanding the cost. They enabled barriers by default to take the high moral ground, but then didn't understand the cost of doing so.

Your analogy about buying a new gas oven is interesting. You look at the manuals and there are *many* ways that you can blow up your oven. It is just that the risk (of someone naively or accidentally blowing themselves up) has been balanced against the benefit of lower consumption of energy. There are many ways of managing risks - redundancy, accepting the risk, etc.

My prime point was that the benchmarking which yeilded questions - without the answers given - are extremely valuable. They allow the upstream people developing systems to understand that they need to consider the bigger picture and apply a risk/cost/benefit judgement and not close of all risks. I would expect that in later versions of SuSE they have turned off barriers now that the risk has been sufficiently understood and the costs determined as being commercially relevant.

Or using your analogy. The tests that the oven may blow up but save 50% on the energy bill has been shown that the net benefit is on the side of the oven that may potentially blow up!

Re:That is the question... (1)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27332567)

Or using your analogy. The tests that the oven may blow up but save 50% on the energy bill has been shown that the net benefit is on the side of the oven that may potentially blow up!

How so? The average yearly cost of an oven [] is $42. You're telling me that you'd accept the risk of injury, possibly death to save $21 a year?

From my experience, most people don't have a cage, or even a rack full of servers that can sustain the loss of a single server going down.

Most don't even run at more than 40% utilization and the performance is not that important.

What is important is that their system is reliable and that they don't have to waste time rebuilding it.

The server and the operating system should just work. I'm more an application developer than anything else. That's were most of my time is spent. What I know about servers and operating systems I learned so that I can put my applications on something I don't have to worry about. A server being down means loss of revenue.

In most cases, it's cheaper to buy a faster cpu, faster disks, use raid 10 than it is to suffer any significant downtime.

Boycott retards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27323975)

Stop replying to stories where TFA is a click through.
Boycott web designer retardation!

Re:Why dang it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27324157)

So now you have to be a Linux kernel hacker to run a technology site?

I love LWN and I'd love to know the answers to those questions, but nonetheless the "article" is interesting on its own, and without it raising awareness on these issues they'd probably remain unknown to Linux hackers (and LWN/Corbert).

imagemagic libraries?? (2, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27321633)

in almost all benchmarks, 2.6.29 did the same or a tiny bit worse than the others. Then in imagemagic operations, sometimes 2x faster? what mem / operation combination caused this?

Re:imagemagic libraries?? (2, Interesting)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27322205)

If you're really so curious you can oprofile [] and find out yourself.

Note: I'm not defending the Phoronix guys. As a previous poster pointed out, they are inherently bad at explaining the why things are slower and sometimes they are flat out wrong []

Re:imagemagic libraries?? (2, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27325933)

``Note: I'm not defending the Phoronix guys. As a previous poster pointed out, they are inherently bad at explaining the why things are slower and sometimes they are flat out wrong [] ''

In that case, the best they can do is to stop talking about it and just stick to what they know. Knowing just what is faster and what is slower is useful by itself. It can be used as a starting point for investigating what exactly caused the speed-ups and slowdowns. If the Phoronix folks can't or don't want to do this investigation themselves, it's perfectly fine to leave it up to other people.

Boot time is better. (5, Interesting)

Blice (1208832) | more than 5 years ago | (#27324085)

A lot of new code (and old code reformed) was added to try and speed up the boot process, I know that for sure. I saw some of the work Arjan did in the bootfast tree-

fastboot: Asynchronous function calls to speed up kernel boot
fastboot: make scsi probes asynchronous
fastboot: make the libata port scan asynchronous
fastboot: make ACPI bus drivers probe asynchronous
fastboot: Make libata initialization even more async

I don't know for sure that all of this made it upstream for this release but I know some of it did. I think you have to pass the "fastboot" kernel line for it, however. So check your kernel configs and update your grubs!

Or LILOs, if you're weird...

Oh one more thing.. I think the introduction of the asynchronous probing and various other things are going to start a whole new wave of bootfast tricks. For example, before it tries mounting the root file system and continuing on, it waits for device probing to finish. A comment above that code states "Waiting for device probing to finish... This is known to cause long delays in boots, for example this can take 5 seconds for a laptop's touchpad to initialize". The comment was written by Arjan, who obviously has intention to speed things up. So I think what might happen is instead of waiting for EVERYTHING to finish probing (Even if it is async), it'll just wait for the filesystem to become available (Perhaps try after IDE probes, then try after SCSI probes, then after USB, and so on.)

I also remember there was a patch that didn't go upstream (I don't think so anyways) that added a function to be able to initialize things later on (After the boot was done). You changed the initialize() or whatever the function name was to initialize_later(), and then after you're done booting, whenever you want, you do a command and it then initializes anything you did the initialize_later() to. So you would be able to load up the webcam initialization or whatever else you know you don't use right when you boot.

Well, where I'm going with this is that I would like to see them incorporate more of that stuff into the kernel. More boot hacks, more power saving, more efficiency. These things are only going to improve.

Re:Boot time is better. (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27326327)

Oh goody. A million bizarre race conditions.

Re:Boot time is better. (2, Insightful)

Blice (1208832) | more than 5 years ago | (#27332193)

They did it pretty good actually. They have a function that waits for certain things to sync up before continuing at places.

And they *do* test the shit out of kernels before releasing, you know..

Benchmarks used x86-64 (1)

chris-chittleborough (771209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27332571)

It was only on after reading the comments at Phoronix that I noticed the benchmarks used 64-bit (x86-64) kernels, not x86 as I had initially assumed. Maybe the use of kernel and compiler code that gets less testing than x86 is related to the odd performance quirks Phoronix found?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?