Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 17:20 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Benchmarks Here is the continuation of a series of comparison tests that is without doubt bound to cause a huge amount of controversy: Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux There are performance wins and losses on both sides of the fence, but Ubuntu compares very well with Windows 7, and no doubt these tests indicate a much closer performance comparison than most people would have expected.
Thread beginning with comment 435250
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jrash
Member since:
2008-10-28

Responsiveness still sucks, try copying a few gigabytes of small files and watch Ubuntu Lucid lock up and become almost unusable. The problem is that there is no synergy between the kernel/X/GNOME/Nautilus so the IO Scheduler starves them of bandwidth. Switching to the deadline IO scheduler doesn't really help either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

fredb1974 Member since:
2006-01-31

5 minutes for 12 Gb and 1600 files on my archlinux with a linux kernel 2.6.35... Ubuntu is not the only distro in the world, only the best known one for now.

Reply Parent Score: 3

renox Member since:
2005-07-06

5 minutes for 12 Gb and 1600 files on my archlinux with a linux kernel 2.6.35... Ubuntu is not the only distro in the world, only the best known one for now.


Uh? The GP post wasn't about the time used but whether the station stayed comfortable to use or not during the copy.
Apparently you totally misunderstood his point.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

due to the i/o scheduler in windows, you can watch a dvd without stuttering while installing an os in virtual box. in linux on the same machine, copying a few files is enough to make it unwatchable

this is a throughput vs latency thing, and linus has made it very clear where the linux priorities lie.

Edited 2010-08-04 14:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Responsiveness still sucks, try copying a few gigabytes of small files and watch Ubuntu Lucid lock up and become almost unusable. The problem is that there is no synergy between the kernel/X/GNOME/Nautilus so the IO Scheduler starves them of bandwidth. Switching to the deadline IO scheduler doesn't really help either.


Would 3000 files of 1MB each suffice as test? Because copying that to an external usb drive while watching a HD movie seems to work fine.

The framerate drops a bit at times, but it's still watchable and the desktop remains responsive. Considering my crappy computer is already struggling to play HD movies alone (CPU around 90%) I don't think anything is really starving because of the copy process.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jrash Member since:
2008-10-28

I'm talking about sata/pata bandwidth, USB2 tops out at 480Mbps so its not really going to max out your internal drive to the point where your system becomes unresponsive.

Reply Parent Score: 2