Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #291289 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-24 00:51 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-04-26 07:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 88 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 00:51 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 01:47 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:41 +0100
DFS 30% slower bullshit Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 06:28 -0400
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 03:41 -0700
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 13:16 +0200
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 04:22 -0700
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 13:38 +0200
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 08:55 -0400
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 06:29 -0700
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-24 15:01 +0200
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 06:27 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 09:35 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 10:11 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 08:53 -0700
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-24 09:26 -0400
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 08:59 -0400
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 06:33 -0700
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 13:14 +0200
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 12:29 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-24 12:33 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 17:33 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 14:53 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-24 21:34 +0000
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-28 07:28 -0400
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-26 18:52 -0500
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 07:39 -0500
Re: DFS 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 08:46 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-24 14:53 +0200
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-24 08:08 -0500
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-24 15:09 +0200
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 06:35 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 11:54 -0600
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 17:39 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 15:50 -0600
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 18:18 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-25 09:18 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 11:12 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-25 11:54 -0600
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 06:44 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 10:07 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 07:52 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-24 16:58 +0200
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 11:03 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-24 17:14 +0200
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 08:55 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 18:07 +0200
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 09:34 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 12:26 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 12:11 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 12:18 -0400
Who cares what you have to say, troll. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 11:50 -0600
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 17:39 +0100
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 10:04 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 11:50 -0600
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-24 23:08 +0000
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 10:18 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 17:42 +0100
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 17:35 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-25 00:00 +0200
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 15:44 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 20:57 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 18:50 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 10:51 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 10:02 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 14:34 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 15:14 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 20:53 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-25 21:37 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 21:55 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 19:37 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-25 22:42 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 19:51 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 20:39 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 04:29 +0000
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 22:55 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 10:14 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-26 23:12 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 03:28 +0000
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-26 00:00 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 21:18 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 04:48 +0000
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-26 12:39 -0400
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 11:45 -0700
Re: Linux 30% slower bullshit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 19:39 -0700
One of the stupidest comments on COLA that Moi has ever seen. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 07:22 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 10:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhdile$jnd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291377 |
On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >> >> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >> 64-bit (eval version) <snip> >> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >> >> (the answer is actually in the question) > I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned > commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with > Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA > speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <553a589b$0$56564$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #291382 |
On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: > On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>> >>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>> 64-bit (eval version) > > <snip> > > >>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>> >>> (the answer is actually in the question) > >> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! > > > I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. > > What about the drives themselves? Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. -- -v You must know that a man can have only one invulnerable loyalty, loyalty to his own concept of the obligations of manhood. All other loyalties are merely deputies of that one. -- Nero Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 16:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150424165800.12fd0485@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #291395 |
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:52:11 -0700 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: > > On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: > >>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. > >>> > >>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 > >>> 64-bit (eval version) > > > > <snip> > > > > > >>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower > >>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? > >>> > >>> (the answer is actually in the question) > > > >> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned > >> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with > >> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... > >> SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! > > > > > > I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and > > Windows. > > > > > > What about the drives themselves? > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. > Spinners...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhdlv0$1ns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291395 |
On 04/24/2015 10:52 AM, vallor wrote: > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>> >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>> 64-bit (eval version) >> >> <snip> >> >> >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>> >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >> >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >>> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >> >> >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. >> >> > > What about the drives themselves? > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. OSs are installed on the same SSD: 128GB Corsair Force GS. All copy operations done on/using that drive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 17:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150424171405.5b6d8be0@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #291400 |
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:03:54 -0400 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 04/24/2015 10:52 AM, vallor wrote: > > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: > >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: > >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. > >>>> > >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 > >>>> 64-bit (eval version) > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> > >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower > >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? > >>>> > >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) > >> > >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned > >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with > >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... > >>> SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! > >> > >> > >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and > >> Windows. > >> > >> > > > > What about the drives themselves? > > > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. > > > OSs are installed on the same SSD: 128GB Corsair Force GS. > > All copy operations done on/using that drive. > Your SSD has write speed of HDD...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | taka0038@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4900cbe-d18b-49a2-a99a-d4f270d5a46f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #291402 |
On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 12:14:07 AM UTC+9, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:03:54 -0400 > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > > > On 04/24/2015 10:52 AM, vallor wrote: > > > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: > > >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: > > >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. > > >>>> > > >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 > > >>>> 64-bit (eval version) > > >> > > >> <snip> > > >> > > >> > > >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower > > >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? > > >>>> > > >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) > > >> > > >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned > > >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with > > >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... > > >>> SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! > > >> > > >> > > >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and > > >> Windows. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > What about the drives themselves? > > > > > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. > > > > > > OSs are installed on the same SSD: 128GB Corsair Force GS. > > > > All copy operations done on/using that drive. > > > > Your SSD has write speed of HDD... Were the partitions aligned to the NAND erase block size? That's one secret the manufacturers are hiding from the Linux communities ... And make sure you got "noop" in /sys/block/sd*/queue/scheduler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 18:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhdpmk$gpn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291408 |
taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 12:14:07 AM UTC+9, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:03:54 -0400 >> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> >> > On 04/24/2015 10:52 AM, vallor wrote: >> > > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >> > >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >> > >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >> > >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >> > >>>> 64-bit (eval version) >> > >> >> > >> <snip> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >> > >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >> > >> >> > >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >> > >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >> > >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... >> > >>> SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and >> > >> Windows. >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > What about the drives themselves? >> > > >> > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. >> > >> > >> > OSs are installed on the same SSD: 128GB Corsair Force GS. >> > >> > All copy operations done on/using that drive. >> > >> >> Your SSD has write speed of HDD... > > Were the partitions aligned to the NAND erase block size? That's one > secret the manufacturers are hiding from the Linux communities ... No, they are not. It is well known. Since years ask the system if it has recognized a SSD cat /sys/block/sd*/queue/rotational If it returns a 0, it has a SSD for device sd(a - x) > And make sure you got "noop" in /sys/block/sd*/queue/scheduler cat /sys/block/sd*/queue/scheduler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | taka0038@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <238eb341-bc55-4044-aff1-3dc75a1a3585@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #291413 |
On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 1:07:48 AM UTC+9, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 12:14:07 AM UTC+9, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:03:54 -0400 > >> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On 04/24/2015 10:52 AM, vallor wrote: > >> > > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: > >> > >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: > >> > >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 > >> > >>>> 64-bit (eval version) > >> > >> > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower > >> > >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) > >> > >> > >> > >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned > >> > >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with > >> > >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... > >> > >>> SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and > >> > >> Windows. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > What about the drives themselves? > >> > > > >> > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. > >> > > >> > > >> > OSs are installed on the same SSD: 128GB Corsair Force GS. > >> > > >> > All copy operations done on/using that drive. > >> > > >> > >> Your SSD has write speed of HDD... > > > > Were the partitions aligned to the NAND erase block size? That's one > > secret the manufacturers are hiding from the Linux communities ... > > No, they are not. It is well known. Since years > > ask the system if it has recognized a SSD > > cat /sys/block/sd*/queue/rotational > > If it returns a 0, it has a SSD for device sd(a - x) > > > And make sure you got "noop" in /sys/block/sd*/queue/scheduler > > cat /sys/block/sd*/queue/scheduler https://www.thomas-krenn.com/en/wiki/Partition_Alignment http://superuser.com/questions/393914/what-is-partition-alignment-and-why-whould-i-need-it https://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/SSD_Tuning_for_Linux#SSD_trim.2C_Partition_Alignment.2C_and_Erase_Block_Size http://codecapsule.com/2014/02/12/coding-for-ssds-part-2-architecture-of-an-ssd-and-benchmarking/ http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/other/157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 12:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhdqpg$flv$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291408 |
taka0038@gmail.com wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 12:14:07 AM UTC+9, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:03:54 -0400 >> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> >> > On 04/24/2015 10:52 AM, vallor wrote: >> > > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >> > >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >> > >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >> > >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >> > >>>> 64-bit (eval version) >> > >> >> > >> <snip> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >> > >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >> > >> >> > >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >> > >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >> > >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... >> > >>> SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and >> > >> Windows. >> > > >> > > What about the drives themselves? >> > > >> > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. >> > >> > OSs are installed on the same SSD: 128GB Corsair Force GS. >> > >> > All copy operations done on/using that drive. >> >> Your SSD has write speed of HDD... Heh. I bought a cheap Crucial 128Gb SSD. Really fast read speed. After boot, Chrome comes up in a second. However, its write speed is a lot less than its read speed. But I figure I'll be reading a lot more big files than writing them. > Were the partitions aligned to the NAND erase block size? https://sites.google.com/site/easylinuxtipsproject/ssd Alignment is not necessary anymore 1.1. A common misunderstanding is, that the partitions on the SSD should be properly aligned first. That used to be true years ago, but no longer. In the current versions of Ubuntu and Linux Mint, and in Debian since Wheezy, all tools automatically align filesystems and partitions to the optimal 4096 byte page size. So there's no need to do anything for alignment on an SSD. > That's one > secret the manufacturers are hiding from the Linux communities ... Huh? Debian, for example, sets up most of what you need for an SDD. > And make sure you got "noop" in /sys/block/sd*/queue/scheduler That, and noatime, are a couple of things the distro might not do for you. Oh, and lowering the "swappiness" of the system. -- "A child is a person who can't understand why someone would give away a perfectly good kitten." -- Doug Larson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 12:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhdpu1$hr8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291402 |
On 4/24/2015 11:14 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:03:54 -0400 > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > >> On 04/24/2015 10:52 AM, vallor wrote: >>> On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >>>> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>>>> 64-bit (eval version) >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>>>> >>>>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >>>> >>>>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>>>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>>>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... >>>>> SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >>>> >>>> >>>> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and >>>> Windows. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What about the drives themselves? >>> >>> Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. >> >> >> OSs are installed on the same SSD: 128GB Corsair Force GS. >> >> All copy operations done on/using that drive. >> > > Your SSD has write speed of HDD... Yeah, it never felt like much of an improvement over the WD Raptor it replaced. Mobo is Gigabyte P55A-UD3. SSD is plugged into a SATA 3Gb/s port, and the BIOS setting for 'GSATA Ctrl' is AHCI. I tried the SSD on a Marvell 9128 6Gb/sec port, but when I did that file copy operations on my other drive (which is a HDD) slowed to a crawl, so I moved the SSD back to the 3Gb/s port. Edit: I just found a BIOS setting called 'Turbo Mode SATA3'. I enabled it, and the system feels faster but the file copy operations took the same amount of time. I rarely mess with speed boosts or 'Turbo modes' or overclocking. I care about stability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 12:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhdqb5$flv$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291395 |
vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>> >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>> 64-bit (eval version) >> >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>> >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >> >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >>> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >> >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. > > What about the drives themselves? > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. Who cares? DFS is an ignorant/dishonest troll. -- There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Wm. Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Who cares what you have to say, troll. |
| Message-ID | <Sd-dndDLS9LyH6fInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #291422 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >>> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>>> >>>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>>> 64-bit (eval version) >>> >>>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>>> >>>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >>> >>>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >>>> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >>> >>> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. >> >> What about the drives themselves? >> Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. > > Who cares? DFS is an ignorant/dishonest troll. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 17:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhdri7$mse$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291395 |
On 24/04/2015 15:52, vallor wrote: > On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>> >>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>> 64-bit (eval version) >> >> <snip> >> >> >>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>> >>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >> >>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >>> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >> >> >> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. >> >> > > What about the drives themselves? > > Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. > What do you suppose dual boot meant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <553a77a0$0$24572$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #291429 |
On 04/24/2015 09:39 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 24/04/2015 15:52, vallor wrote: >> On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >>> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>>> >>>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>>> 64-bit (eval version) >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>>> >>>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >>> >>>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >>>> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >>> >>> >>> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. >>> >>> >> >> What about the drives themselves? >> >> Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. >> > > What do you suppose dual boot meant? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? -- -v His super power is to turn into a scotch terrier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Sd-dndHLS9LLH6fInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #291437 |
vallor wrote: > On 04/24/2015 09:39 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >> On 24/04/2015 15:52, vallor wrote: >>> On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >>>> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>>>> 64-bit (eval version) >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>>>> >>>>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >>>> >>>>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>>>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>>>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >>>>> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >>>> >>>> >>>> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What about the drives themselves? >>> >>> Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. >>> >> >> What do you suppose dual boot meant? > > What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? > It means both operating systems are on the same drive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mmbnvjfu03.ra3j@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #291448 |
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > vallor wrote: >> On 04/24/2015 09:39 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> On 24/04/2015 15:52, vallor wrote: >>>> On 04/24/2015 07:07 AM, DFS wrote: >>>>> On 04/24/2015 09:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote: >>>>>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 >>>>>>> 64-bit (eval version) >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower >>>>>>> than Windows at copying 2 large files? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (the answer is actually in the question) >>>>> >>>>>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned >>>>>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with >>>>>> Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA >>>>>> speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I used whatever drivers were installed by default on Linux and Windows. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> What about the drives themselves? >>>> >>>> Are they identical? What brand? Spinners or SSD? Etc. >>>> >>> >>> What do you suppose dual boot meant? >> >> What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? >> > It means both operating systems are on the same drive. You can multiboot from multiple drives, either from bios boot selection or from grub.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 10:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhdj9p$lmr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291377 |
On 2015-04-24 9:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote:
>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days.
>>
>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 64-bit
>> (eval version)
>>
>>
>> ============================================================================
>>
>> Linux:
>>
>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ ls -l *.iso
>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 4148166656 Oct 15 2014 CentOS.iso
>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 1480048640 Feb 23 19:50 Manjaro.iso
>>
>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp Manjaro.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>> real 0m14.473s
>> user 0m0.008s
>> sys 0m2.960s
>>
>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp CentOS.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>> real 0m43.194s
>> user 0m0.046s
>> sys 0m8.354s
>>
>>
>> That's 57.7 seconds to copy 2 big files.
>> ext4 filesystem
>>
>> ============================================================================
>>
>> Windows:
>>
>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> dir
>>
>> Mode LastWriteTime Length Name
>> ---- ------------- ------ ----
>> -a--- 10/15/2014 1:00 PM 4148166656 CentOS.iso
>> -a--- 2/23/2015 7:50 PM 1480048640 Manjaro.iso
>>
>>
>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\Manjaro.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>> TotalSeconds : 8.8013274
>>
>>
>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\CentOS.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>> TotalSeconds : 35.5849752
>>
>>
>> That's 44.4 seconds for the same 2 files.
>> NTFS filesystem
>>
>> ============================================================================
>>
>>
>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower than
>> Windows at copying 2 large files?
>>
>> (the answer is actually in the question)
>
> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with Linux, hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA speed on the chipset makes a hell of difference!
Linux developers just want the hardware to work and in that sense, they
do a pretty good job. After all, it recognizes and sets up hardware that
is directly-connected to a Linux machine a lot better than Windows does
in my estimation. The problem is that recognizing and allowing the
hardware to work is as far as the support goes; it doesn't actually
support the hardware _well_. Printers will do the bare minimum even in
terms of resolution and chipsets will probably not reach the maximal
performance that they are supposed to offer. You have to give the Linux
developers kudos for what they DID get working, especially since they
developed a solution _without_ the manufacturer's help in many cases,
but if performance and features DO matter to you, Linux is not the
operating system to use.
--
Slimer
Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 17:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhdrom$mse$2@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291387 |
On 24/04/2015 15:18, Slimer wrote:
> On 2015-04-24 9:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote:
>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days.
>>>
>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2 64-bit
>>> (eval version)
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> Linux:
>>>
>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ ls -l *.iso
>>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 4148166656 Oct 15 2014 CentOS.iso
>>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 1480048640 Feb 23 19:50 Manjaro.iso
>>>
>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp Manjaro.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>>> real 0m14.473s
>>> user 0m0.008s
>>> sys 0m2.960s
>>>
>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp CentOS.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>>> real 0m43.194s
>>> user 0m0.046s
>>> sys 0m8.354s
>>>
>>>
>>> That's 57.7 seconds to copy 2 big files.
>>> ext4 filesystem
>>>
>>> ============================================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> Windows:
>>>
>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> dir
>>>
>>> Mode LastWriteTime Length Name
>>> ---- ------------- ------ ----
>>> -a--- 10/15/2014 1:00 PM 4148166656 CentOS.iso
>>> -a--- 2/23/2015 7:50 PM 1480048640 Manjaro.iso
>>>
>>>
>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\Manjaro.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>>> TotalSeconds : 8.8013274
>>>
>>>
>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\CentOS.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>>> TotalSeconds : 35.5849752
>>>
>>>
>>> That's 44.4 seconds for the same 2 files.
>>> NTFS filesystem
>>>
>>> ============================================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower than
>>> Windows at copying 2 large files?
>>>
>>> (the answer is actually in the question)
>>
>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned
>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with Linux,
>> hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA speed on
>> the chipset makes a hell of difference!
>
> Linux developers just want the hardware to work and in that sense, they
> do a pretty good job. After all, it recognizes and sets up hardware that
> is directly-connected to a Linux machine a lot better than Windows does
> in my estimation. The problem is that recognizing and allowing the
> hardware to work is as far as the support goes; it doesn't actually
> support the hardware _well_. Printers will do the bare minimum even in
> terms of resolution and chipsets will probably not reach the maximal
> performance that they are supposed to offer. You have to give the Linux
> developers kudos for what they DID get working, especially since they
> developed a solution _without_ the manufacturer's help in many cases,
> but if performance and features DO matter to you, Linux is not the
> operating system to use.
>
>
In the server enterprise world, hardware support and drivers are
excellent and as good as Windows. It's the Desktop world where stuff
falls apart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhecu1$skj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291432 |
On 2015-04-24 12:42 PM, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 24/04/2015 15:18, Slimer wrote:
>> On 2015-04-24 9:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote:
>>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days.
>>>>
>>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2
>>>> 64-bit
>>>> (eval version)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linux:
>>>>
>>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ ls -l *.iso
>>>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 4148166656 Oct 15 2014 CentOS.iso
>>>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 1480048640 Feb 23 19:50 Manjaro.iso
>>>>
>>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp Manjaro.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>>>> real 0m14.473s
>>>> user 0m0.008s
>>>> sys 0m2.960s
>>>>
>>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp CentOS.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>>>> real 0m43.194s
>>>> user 0m0.046s
>>>> sys 0m8.354s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's 57.7 seconds to copy 2 big files.
>>>> ext4 filesystem
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Windows:
>>>>
>>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> dir
>>>>
>>>> Mode LastWriteTime Length Name
>>>> ---- ------------- ------ ----
>>>> -a--- 10/15/2014 1:00 PM 4148166656 CentOS.iso
>>>> -a--- 2/23/2015 7:50 PM 1480048640 Manjaro.iso
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>>>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\Manjaro.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>>>> TotalSeconds : 8.8013274
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>>>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\CentOS.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>>>> TotalSeconds : 35.5849752
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's 44.4 seconds for the same 2 files.
>>>> NTFS filesystem
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower than
>>>> Windows at copying 2 large files?
>>>>
>>>> (the answer is actually in the question)
>>>
>>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned
>>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with Linux,
>>> hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA speed on
>>> the chipset makes a hell of difference!
>>
>> Linux developers just want the hardware to work and in that sense, they
>> do a pretty good job. After all, it recognizes and sets up hardware that
>> is directly-connected to a Linux machine a lot better than Windows does
>> in my estimation. The problem is that recognizing and allowing the
>> hardware to work is as far as the support goes; it doesn't actually
>> support the hardware _well_. Printers will do the bare minimum even in
>> terms of resolution and chipsets will probably not reach the maximal
>> performance that they are supposed to offer. You have to give the Linux
>> developers kudos for what they DID get working, especially since they
>> developed a solution _without_ the manufacturer's help in many cases,
>> but if performance and features DO matter to you, Linux is not the
>> operating system to use.
>>
>>
>
> In the server enterprise world, hardware support and drivers are
> excellent and as good as Windows. It's the Desktop world where stuff
> falls apart.
You would think that if the server hardware is so well supported, so
would the desktop counterparts. I guess the manufacturers make sure to
support the server hardware well since Linux servers are quite popular
and put no effort whatsoever on regular hardware because companies
couldn't give Linux away on the desktop if it came on a gold-plated desktop.
--
Slimer
Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-25 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mheecj$1l3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291484 |
Slimer wrote:
> On 2015-04-24 12:42 PM, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>> On 24/04/2015 15:18, Slimer wrote:
>>> On 2015-04-24 9:44 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+9, DFS wrote:
>>>>> The hobbyware is really dragging these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dual-booting Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 64-bit and Windows Server 2012 R2
>>>>> 64-bit
>>>>> (eval version)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
============================================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux:
>>>>>
>>>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ ls -l *.iso
>>>>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 4148166656 Oct 15 2014 CentOS.iso
>>>>> -rw------- 1 dfs dfs 1480048640 Feb 23 19:50 Manjaro.iso
>>>>>
>>>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp Manjaro.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>>>>> real 0m14.473s
>>>>> user 0m0.008s
>>>>> sys 0m2.960s
>>>>>
>>>>> dfs@mint17 ~/Desktop $ time cp CentOS.iso /home/dfs/Downloads
>>>>> real 0m43.194s
>>>>> user 0m0.046s
>>>>> sys 0m8.354s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's 57.7 seconds to copy 2 big files.
>>>>> ext4 filesystem
>>>>>
>>>>>
============================================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows:
>>>>>
>>>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> dir
>>>>>
>>>>> Mode LastWriteTime Length Name
>>>>> ---- ------------- ------ ----
>>>>> -a--- 10/15/2014 1:00 PM 4148166656 CentOS.iso
>>>>> -a--- 2/23/2015 7:50 PM 1480048640 Manjaro.iso
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>>>>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\Manjaro.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>>>>> TotalSeconds : 8.8013274
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PS C:\Users\DFS\desktop> Measure-Command {Copy-Item
>>>>> c:\users\dfs\desktop\CentOS.iso c:\users\dfs\downloads}
>>>>> TotalSeconds : 35.5849752
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's 44.4 seconds for the same 2 files.
>>>>> NTFS filesystem
>>>>>
>>>>>
============================================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is the most popular hobbyist "operating system" 30% slower than
>>>>> Windows at copying 2 large files?
>>>>>
>>>>> (the answer is actually in the question)
>>>>
>>>> I guess DFS used a crappy SATA driver for the Mint and well tuned
>>>> commercial SATA driver in the Windoze. That's the problem with Linux,
>>>> hardware is not supported as well as in the M$World ... SATA speed on
>>>> the chipset makes a hell of difference!
>>>
>>> Linux developers just want the hardware to work and in that sense, they
>>> do a pretty good job. After all, it recognizes and sets up hardware that
>>> is directly-connected to a Linux machine a lot better than Windows does
>>> in my estimation. The problem is that recognizing and allowing the
>>> hardware to work is as far as the support goes; it doesn't actually
>>> support the hardware _well_. Printers will do the bare minimum even in
>>> terms of resolution and chipsets will probably not reach the maximal
>>> performance that they are supposed to offer. You have to give the Linux
>>> developers kudos for what they DID get working, especially since they
>>> developed a solution _without_ the manufacturer's help in many cases,
>>> but if performance and features DO matter to you, Linux is not the
>>> operating system to use.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In the server enterprise world, hardware support and drivers are
>> excellent and as good as Windows. It's the Desktop world where stuff
>> falls apart.
>
> You would think that if the server hardware is so well supported, so
> would the desktop counterparts. I guess the manufacturers make sure to
> support the server hardware well since Linux servers are quite popular
> and put no effort whatsoever on regular hardware because companies
> couldn't give Linux away on the desktop if it came on a gold-plated
> desktop.
And now the imbecile Snit Slimeball will explain what exactly is different
on a desktop system compared to a server. Just count on it, he will be
incredibly detailed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web