Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ohm

Is Ubuntu getting slower?

25 posts in this topic

This is pretty interesting. A number of benchmarks were performed on identical hardware and default software configurations of the last four Ubuntu releases. You might expect most of the benchmarks to stay the same, but that's not necessarily true.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti..._2008&num=1

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this article a couple days ago, I found it pretty interesting as well. While many of these benchmarks show Ubuntu to be getting slower, I have not found my Ubuntu laptop to reflect any of these slow downs. Granted, I haven't done any benchmarks on it, however I've been running the newest versions of Ubuntu since my laptop was new (around the time of 7.04).

I use Ubuntu because of the level of compatibility with hardware that it has, otherwise I would be using debian. I really enjoy the fact that hardware support keeps getting better; for example, my Intel HDA audio worked out of the box with the latest Ubuntu release - which was awesome. Also, my Broadcom wireless card was much easier to get working in the newest release.

I think all of these things are worth some slowdowns, except for in extreme cases like the 50% slower MP3 encoding test.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm astounded really. It's a pretty radical shift on many benchmarks for pure number crunching. What is it even in the kernel that could affect this? How they handle memory?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology progresses. Software enhancements are expected.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm astounded really. It's a pretty radical shift on many benchmarks for pure number crunching. What is it even in the kernel that could affect this? How they handle memory?

The scheduler can affect performance quite a bit. If the new scheduler is tuned for interactive responsiveness, then number crunching programs could suffer. There's always a balance, but I haven't seen the "responsiveness" of the system get any better (or worse) over the years. Not that I use Ubuntu right now anyway, 8.10 failed miserably on me and I'm XP only for the time being :P

Technology progresses. Software enhancements are expected.

Yes, but people generally expect things to get faster. Why would I want new software that runs slower?

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that newer software ran on newer hardware?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8.10 failed miserably on me and I'm XP only for the time being

What exactly does that mean? I have heard about nothing but positive experiences with Ibex, other than that some older series nVidia cards aren't supported by the new 2.6.27 kernel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8.10 failed miserably on me and I'm XP only for the time being

What exactly does that mean? I have heard about nothing but positive experiences with Ibex, other than that some older series nVidia cards aren't supported by the new 2.6.27 kernel.

No matter what I did, mouse input was horribly laggy. From what I could tell, X was running all right, it was just the mouse that was the problem. Something was also hanging at boot, it took a few minutes to start up. The project I'm working on right now is on Windows anyway, so I'll come back to 8.10 later.

I've always had problems with Linux on this machine though. I have to end up disabling ACPI and the onboard sound, except during the installer because its auto-configured X needs ACPI, then hope it boots correctly without ACPI when it's installed and get X configured. It's a pain in the ass, but Linux always has been a pain in the ass. Maybe I shouldn't have chosen the absolute cheapest board (which is ironically an ASUS, who makes my kickass Eee) I could find at the moment.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that newer software ran on newer hardware?

Do you subscribe to the idea of throwing more hardware on software problems? It's unreasonable to expect the new software to always run as fast as the old software without new hardware, but only if the new software actually offers something new. The current trend in the software market is, however, to just churn out software that could be made faster with a few tweaks and tell everyone that they just need newer hardware.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very true. However, the article is about how Ubuntu has gotten slower between versions 7.04 and 8.10. Many new features have been added between those versions. So the point you make (which is true) doesn't apply here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New features added to the operating system shouldn't affect how fast MP3s encode. Something fishy is going on, either with the Ubuntu kernel or their benchmarking program. I'd be interested to see how Ubuntu fares when compared to other distros in seemingly irrelevant tests like MP3 encoding. You'd think they'd be more or less the same, but from these tests, you just never know.

Also, newer software is not always faster. Especially when upgrading to newer environments that do more at runtime. It's like upgrading from C to Python, trading easier coding for less efficient execution. However, that's not really an issue here as the performance of these programs are entirely dependent on things like the kernel, glibc, X and GTK. All of those are written in C.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't anything new to me. I used Ubuntu 7.10 and it ran just fine, and then as soon as I upgrade to 8.04 everything became ridiculously slow on me. That was when I switched over to Debian and everything has run great ever since. Ubuntu has gotten waaaay too much bloat. Originally it was nice cause it had a lot of features and was easy to use, but they just keep adding more features to the point that its getting ridiculous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of figured this too. I haven't taken any benchmarks of my own, but I find that it utilizes a lot more ram, and is heavy on the cpu cycle bursts.

If I had another distro to switch to, without the need to get all my applications all over, I'd probably switch. but i have too much stuff to loose

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running Kubuntu, but I haven't installed Intrepid yet. In fact, I'm still using KDE 3.5.9. I usually don't upgrade the distro right after it's released, because I prefer to let other users do the field testing to make sure there are no incompatibilities or bugs before I adopt it myself. Guess I'm just an asshole like that.

Anybody have any experiences with Kubuntu 8.10 "Intrepid Ibex" they'd like to share?

Edited by Colonel Panic
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll experience many kernel crashes if you use intel 4965 wireless card.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8.10 failed miserably on me and I'm XP only for the time being

What exactly does that mean? I have heard about nothing but positive experiences with Ibex, other than that some older series nVidia cards aren't supported by the new 2.6.27 kernel.

Its true, 8.10 Alternate 64bit AMD version doesnt work at all with my graphics card (9600GT) X Server fails half way through loading into Ubuntu (it installed 100%, its after the reboot)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im using 8.10 and i think it's fantastic. Sure, it's not the fastest but the hardware support is great (especially compared to 8.04 - big disappointment). For a "works, no fuss" machine (we all need one of those) i have no problems trading a bit of performance for ease of use. If it's stable and if it lets me do what i want then it's good enough for me. As for kubuntu, im sorry but i cant offer any comments. I installed using wubi a little while back (really just for a test, i always wanted to try wubi) but i really dislike KDE. Personally, i havent noticed any speed differences between releases, but then again, i've never bench marked it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im using 8.10 and i think it's fantastic. Sure, it's not the fastest but the hardware support is great (especially compared to 8.04 - big disappointment). For a "works, no fuss" machine (we all need one of those) i have no problems trading a bit of performance for ease of use. If it's stable and if it lets me do what i want then it's good enough for me. As for kubuntu, im sorry but i cant offer any comments. I installed using wubi a little while back (really just for a test, i always wanted to try wubi) but i really dislike KDE. Personally, i havent noticed any speed differences between releases, but then again, i've never bench marked it.

I've been running both Kubuntu 8.10 and Ubuntu 8.10. There's a big discrepancy between the two in terms of general polish and stability. I thought it was the hardware I was running, but then I installed Kubuntu on other systems and was seeing the exact same bugs. You click to open a menu, and instead of the item fading in or popping up, you have random data from what I assume to be the video buffer fill in the space where the menu will show up. And the KDE daemons tend to crash. So does KDM. That's a pretty big problem.

GNOME is much more refined. Probably because they're not trying to redesign a desktop environment from scratch. Which is unfortunate for KDE, as it looks bloody fantastic. It just doesn't run well. Even at version 4.2.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "random garbage" has something to do with Compiz, I see it on just about everything on my machine.

I had some really bad experienced with KDE 4, it just didn't work. KDE 3, on the other hand, is faster (Qt is generally quicker) and the applications are better. I don't have any of the stability problems you refer to.

Though there is something wrong with Ubuntu's hardware detection and this machine. I just can't get it to work unless I do some magical little dance of disabling ACPI, which breaks my networking, then reboot and video doesn't work, etc. Then again, I booted up the PCLinuxOS live CD and everything works great. Go figure. That's what I was referring to (a few months ago) in this thread about Ubuntu crapping out on me.

I should gather some live CDs and do some informal benchmarks to see if performance of, say, encoding an MP3 (it'll have to be in a ramdisk or something) really does take any longer on some distros.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't anything new to me. I used Ubuntu 7.10 and it ran just fine, and then as soon as I upgrade to 8.04 everything became ridiculously slow on me. That was when I switched over to Debian and everything has run great ever since. Ubuntu has gotten waaaay too much bloat. Originally it was nice cause it had a lot of features and was easy to use, but they just keep adding more features to the point that its getting ridiculous.

Yeah! Another Debian user in this expanding Ubuntu world. I kind of have the same feeling, I'm used to Debian and I don't need all the uber-cool added features of Ubuntu.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yeah everything gets slower when all you do is add, i mean their not removing features from ubuntu but it shouldn't make much of a difference in speed for encoding mp3s ect if the hard drive is still relativly empty otherwise the larger files/dist and apps do use more ram and hd space so slower seek times so slight delay in write time inless you have solidstate drive. but i would know havent had ubuntu work on any machine ive had. why wouldnt people just use debian anyways ubuntu's based off of it and is not the succesor as they still coexsist. beats me probably just the added features

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well yeah everything gets slower when all you do is add, i mean their not removing features from ubuntu but it shouldn't make much of a difference in speed for encoding mp3s ect if the hard drive is still relativly empty otherwise the larger files/dist and apps do use more ram and hd space so slower seek times so slight delay in write time inless you have solidstate drive. but i would know havent had ubuntu work on any machine ive had. why wouldnt people just use debian anyways ubuntu's based off of it and is not the succesor as they still coexsist. beats me probably just the added features

Use punctuation. Also, try making sense.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well yeah everything gets slower when all you do is add, i mean their not removing features from ubuntu but it shouldn't make much of a difference in speed for encoding mp3s ect if the hard drive is still relativly empty otherwise the larger files/dist and apps do use more ram and hd space so slower seek times so slight delay in write time inless you have solidstate drive. but i would know havent had ubuntu work on any machine ive had. why wouldnt people just use debian anyways ubuntu's based off of it and is not the succesor as they still coexsist. beats me probably just the added features

Use punctuation. Also, try making sense.

how so? by being a master of litarature and saying a few words that could mean many things if they were actually thought about such as; "why dont we eat babies?"

edit: if you add extra stuff to a program when it is compiled and eventually ran it will be bigger and take up more ram and hd space therefore it could be deduced that it will be will be slower as it is using more ram making you have less free ram to work with whicch could possibly slow down a computer. having more data used on an optical drive could cause the computer to take longer, in finding where you are putting, taking, modifiying, or running and application. if you are say pagefiling onto said optical drive it would slow it down if there was not a seperate drive for pagefiling. just beacuse it is a different partion does not mean it will not slow down, if it is infact on the same drive it will still be slowed down by the longer search time on other parts of the disk(s). if you make applications bigger and add more applications it will slow down.

Edited by dinscurge
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying really hard to understand what you're saying, but you don't make it easy. Please, use punctuation. Reading your posts is like reading one long, rambling run-on sentence. You know what you're trying to say, but unless you can form things like complete sentences and paragraphs, it's very difficult for anyone else to figure that out.

A program being larger or there being more programs won't slow down other programs. It doesn't matter if there are more files on the hard drive, you'll still have to seek just as much. Also, it doesn't matter if the programs in RAM are larger, as long as there's enough free RAM for the programs you're running. Though true, if there are more files in a directory, locating any one particular file will take longer, but that's not going to matter in the mp3 encoder case. Any difference in raw performance is going to be because of tweaks to the scheduler, the size and number of disk buffers, etc.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty interesting. A number of benchmarks were performed on identical hardware and default software configurations of the last four Ubuntu releases. You might expect most of the benchmarks to stay the same, but that's not necessarily true.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti..._2008&num=1

Perhaps in benchmark testing Ubuntu is getting slower, BUT...Im using fairly old hardware (amd64 sempron +3200, 1.2 gb and only the onboard video) and my ubuntu box is running 9.10 and it still uses less resources, boots faster, performs faster, and is more stable than my wifes brand new work laptop with a dual core intel centrino and 4gbs of ram.

I have the extra visual effects enabled, ciaro dock (no gxl), desktop drapes, and google gadgets running and still only use around 200mb of ram when idle, my wifes M$ crapper uses that just to get to look like a plain xp desktop, so while in benchmarks it may be getting slower, in my personal user experience with Ubuntu I have noticed no degradation in speed and in fact actually have seen a slight increase with boot load times using 9.10

Edited by etherknot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0