1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Peter A. H. Peterson wrote: |
5 |
> Hi Everyone, |
6 |
> |
7 |
> My name is Peter Peterson and I represent a group of a grad students |
8 |
> at UCLA. We're in a computer systems performance analysis course and we |
9 |
> were hoping to do a general performance comparison of gentoo vs. a |
10 |
> popular binary i386-compatible distribution (probably ubuntu) in some |
11 |
> "real-world" server tests to try and meaningfully calculate the |
12 |
> performance gains that local compilation provides. (For example, |
13 |
> apache2 requests processed per second on the same hardware.) |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I've subscribed to this list because we want the gentoo community to |
16 |
> be involved in helping us design the tests so that we can hopefully |
17 |
> all feel good about what and how we are testing the systems. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> We have no particular outcome in mind; our group represents a wide |
20 |
> range of computer users, from Mac, Linux, and Windows enthusiasts, and |
21 |
> we have all used a wide variety of Linux distributions. We have simply |
22 |
> noticed that much of the discussion of gentoo's performance advantage |
23 |
> is anecdotal and we're genuinely hoping to provide some meaningful |
24 |
> experimental data for discussion. Also, if anyone knows of any |
25 |
> available benchmark data or papers on this subject, we'd love to hear |
26 |
> about them. There was apparently a paper on slashdot a couple of years |
27 |
> ago, but the host it was on appears to now be squatted. For that |
28 |
> matter, if this is a well understood or closed issue (for example, if |
29 |
> the statistics that people quote are actually from good experimental |
30 |
> data) please let us know. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Is anyone here interested in discussing this project? We are |
33 |
> specifically interested in discussing methodology, testing suits, |
34 |
> CFLAGS and other options. Our desire is not to "trick out" gentoo or |
35 |
> ubuntu, but rather quantify the performance benefit that gentoo has |
36 |
> over binary distributions with "normal" compile flags (whatever normal |
37 |
> is). |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Thanks for your time, |
40 |
> |
41 |
> Peter Peterson (et al) |
42 |
> |
43 |
|
44 |
The one thing I know is that the Ruby interpreter gains quite a bit |
45 |
(about 20 - 30 percent) from being compiled with the appropriate |
46 |
"-march=" flag in GCC, and that most of the other compilation options |
47 |
have much less payoff. I don't have the link handy, but it certainly |
48 |
makes sense. |
49 |
|
50 |
Today's chips are optimized to run lots of streams of 386 code, so a |
51 |
"server" test might not show substantial differences. If you've got |
52 |
enough threads to keep the processor(s) busy, you aren't going to see |
53 |
much of an advantage from compiling to "native" code. Where you will see |
54 |
a pronounced advantage is on single-threaded applications, like |
55 |
scientific workstations run. |
56 |
|
57 |
Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if a Gentoo server was significantly |
58 |
faster than a CentOS 5 (RHEL 5 clone) server on a high-intensity server |
59 |
workload. But I have tried a lot of distros for scientific workstations, |
60 |
and Gentoo does seem to have an advantage there. |
61 |
|
62 |
What's the title of the course? Is this a compiler course? |
63 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
64 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) |
65 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
66 |
|
67 |
iD8DBQFGNB1LaZUb+jwczfoRAprsAKC08NiyZSNnzOV2vAYIEgShQnFRigCgzddR |
68 |
6htoqVXzJE2lSb6R5+0ftZA= |
69 |
=GFdy |
70 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
71 |
-- |
72 |
gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |