Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mateusz Kowalczyk <fuuzetsu@×××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo speed comparison to other distros
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:31:21
Message-Id: 51426BCB.5090200@fuuzetsu.co.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo speed comparison to other distros by Dale
1 On 14/03/13 23:52, Dale wrote:
2 > Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
3 >> On 14/03/13 22:41, Dale wrote:
4 >>> Grant Edwards wrote:
5 >>>> On 2013-03-14, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
6 >>>>
7 >>>>> I was wondering. Has anyone ever seen where a test as been done to
8 >>>>> compare the speed of Gentoo with other distros? Maybe Gentoo compared
9 >>>>> to Redhat, Mandrake, Ubuntu and such?
10 >>>> I just did a test, and they're all the same.
11 >>>>
12 >>>> CDs/DVDS of various distros dropped from a height of 1m all hit the
13 >>>> floor simultaneously [there are random variations due to aerodynamic
14 >>>> instability of the disk shape, but it's the same for all distros]. If
15 >>>> launched horizontally with spin to provide attitude stability (thrown
16 >>>> like a frisbee), they all fly the same.
17 >>>>
18 >>>> The point being, you're going to have to define "speed".
19 >>>>
20 >>>> Does speed refer to
21 >>>>
22 >>>> Installation time?
23 >>>>
24 >>>> Boot time?
25 >>>>
26 >>>> Linpack?
27 >>>>
28 >>>> Dhrystone?
29 >>>>
30 >>>> Whetstone?
31 >>>>
32 >>>> Time for me to figure out how to fix a configuration problem?
33 >>>>
34 >>>> Time to do to an update on a machine that's been unplugged for a year?
35 >>>>
36 >>>> Time to to produce a packaged version of some random C program that
37 >>>> comes with a Makefile that uses autotools?
38 >>>>
39 >>>> Time for a reported bug to get fixed?
40 >>>>
41 >>>
42 >>> OK. It appears not very many can figure out what I asked for. So, let
43 >>> me spell it out for those who are challenged. LOL ;-) Read some
44 >>> humor into that OK.
45 >>>
46 >>> Install a OS. Run tests on a set of programs and record the time it
47 >>> takes to complete a certain task. More tasks the better.
48 >>>
49 >>> Then install another OS on the same hardware. Run tests on a set of
50 >>> programs and record the time it takes to complete a certain task. More
51 >>> tasks the better.
52 >>>
53 >>> The object of this is, does Gentoo with the customization it allows run
54 >>> faster than some binary install that does NOT allow those controls? In
55 >>> other words, can a Gentoo based install perform more efficiently than a
56 >>> binary based install like Redhat, Ubuntu or some other distro?
57 >>>
58 >>> I am NOT concerned about compile times or the install itself.
59 >>>
60 >>> Does that put the dots closer together for the challenged ones? ROFL
61 >>>
62 >>> Dale
63 >>>
64 >>> :-) :-)
65 >>>
66 >> The point of the challenged ones was that while we can take measurements
67 >> like these, it's rather meaningless to do so. The result will be
68 >> different for every single person out there depending on their
69 >> configuration, USE, CFLAGS and who knows what else.
70 >>
71 >> I can compile a package with support for 3 different DEs, few WMs, oss
72 >> and alsa and about a billion things I will never use. Does this make for
73 >> a more or less of a meaningful test than doing the same test with no
74 >> flags what so ever? There is no correct answer as it varies per user
75 >> basis. The most meaningful measurements that we can probably take would
76 >> be between different USE flags configurations. Maybe we can say that
77 >> package ‘foo’ with certain USE and CFLAGS runs in less average time than
78 >> the same package on a distro Bar.
79 >>
80 >> In my opinion, it would be far more meaningful to measure the effect of
81 >> different USE flags on the same package, *in relative time* on the same
82 >> system. This would give us more idea about the impact of each flag as
83 >> opposed to a very limited view of ‘package foo with certain specific USE
84 >> flags runs 10ms faster than the same package on the same hardware on a
85 >> binary distribution’. If you still want such measurements and you want
86 >> them to be somewhat meaningful to you, it is you who will have to take
87 >> them. Unless there are some gross inconsistencies in run times on
88 >> different distributions, we have no use for such measurement.
89 >>
90 >> Everyone understood what you asked for. It's _you_ that misunderstood
91 >> their explanation for why it's meaningless to ask such a question in the
92 >> first place.
93 >>
94 >
95 > I didn't miss anything. I get what some are saying. The reason for my
96 > question is this. Gentoo allows a person to customize the OS to the
97 > specific hardware it is being run on. Redhat and other binary distros
98 > don't allow this, unless you compile your own packages which is no
99 > longer really a binary install.
100 >
101 > So, if I install Redhat on my machine, would it be less efficient than
102 > my Gentoo install which is customized for my hardware? Has someone else
103 > tested this and made it public?
104 >
105 > If people can't get this, never mind.
106 >
107 > Dale
108 >
109 > :-) :-)
110 >
111
112 I don't think that it's plausible to take such measurement. We could set
113 every USE flag possible for the package we are benchmarking to try and
114 replicate the support for everything that the binary package is likely
115 to have. We also have to do this for all its dependencies (and their
116 dependencies and so on) to have nothing that could potentially influence
117 the measurement. Assuming that portage complies with this (it won't), we
118 compile the package with optimizations for our hardware. The result? We
119 probably have the same result on Gentoo and the other distro.
120
121 Why? The reason is simple: binary distributions provide packages
122 compiled with optimizations turned on for specific architectures. Unless
123 you are doing some unheard of optimizations for your obscure model of
124 the CPU, I don't imagine you'd get much advantage at all. If the
125 maintainer of the binary package compiles it with optimizations for an
126 i7 and you do the same, why should the performance be different?
127
128 If you install RedHat on your machine, it probably will be less
129 efficient than Gentoo but for a different reason. It won't be
130 (noticeably) more efficient because you've got your CFLAGS set in a
131 particular way but it because you only install the packages you actually
132 want and remove support for things you don't need. Why bloat a package
133 and waste cycles having it try to poll a service you might never
134 actually use? Gentoo lets you get rid (or never install in the first
135 place) of this kind of… bloat while you don't have much choice on a
136 binary package short of compiling everything by hand at which point you
137 should be using Gentoo to do it for you.
138
139 RedHat maintainers aren't stupid (you can probably tell I've never used
140 RH) – they will release packages optimized for architectures they will
141 run on. Overall you might get very slight performance boost because of
142 some CFLAG you enable but you might as well have worse performance
143 because you don't know as much about optimizations as the RH maintainers
144 and developers. Bah, you can even find examples on Gentoo wiki where
145 compiling certain packages with certain flags actually makes them slower
146 and not faster where usually the opposite is the case.
147
148 --
149 Mateusz K.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo speed comparison to other distros William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au>
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo speed comparison to other distros Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info>