Knurpht @ openSUSE wrote:
These benchmarks IMO are useless without exact knowledge of what is installed by default.
Wouldn't it be what was running and what the kernel factors were (optimization, scheduling, fs choices, background processes running by default, etc).
Like always on phoronix. The OS's al running the same linux standard base, same kernel/desktop etc.
But to choose exactly same kernel wipes out the differences that were chosen for each distro. Do they include only x686 optimizations, or do they have different libs for different processors?
would come a bit closer. F.e. try to actually run Clear Linux in a VM and you'll see that it's only optimized for max. performance in benchmarks. Eh, some VW stuff comes to mind.
VW? as in Volkswagon? From what I read in comments, Clear Linux was heavily worked on by Intel engineers who try to maximally tune it for new hardware. I don't know how true that is or if it complete doodoo, but if certainly would seem to explain slower speeds from distros that focus on new features over performance, for example, or wide hardware support (including other architectures) over a narrower focus. I forwarded the info here to see if anyone had more concrete knowledge or get a reactions like good/bad/ignore it/not our focus...etc. FWIW, I always compile my own kernel and some tools and and use mtune/mcpu=native in my own kernel in hopes of it squeezing a bit more out of the HW, but as to whether or not that helps? I noted on Clear linux, that they end to try to evaluate your use case to tailor the distro or a build to the customer. I used to be more performance oriented -- working in the compiler group @ Intel as a first job tends to nurture that. I still have an interest in making my machines run well, so I pay attention to such articles. Probably one of the few who do....who knows. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org