Revisiting Linux Part 1: A Look at Ubuntu 8.04
by Ryan Smith on August 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
File/Networking Performance
Finally we have file and networking performance. As Ubuntu uses a different file system (ext3 versus Windows’ NTFS) there’s the potential for some significant differences here.
Starting with file performance, we will be using a collection of roughly 1500 files, totaling 380MB.
Even after SP1, file performance has long been a thron in the side of Vista. Here it manages an embarrassing loss to Ubuntu, taking over 50% longer to make a copy of the same folder.
Looking at ZIP compression times, it’s an even larger gap. Vista needs 75% longer to compress the same folder. While compression can be CPU bound, looking at our data this specific test is largely I/O bound. We’ve already established at Windows’ built-in ZIP abilities are pretty bad, but we’ve never figured out why this is.
Decompression is even worse for Windows. It takes nearly 4 times as long to decompress the same archive. It’s not even a contest – Ubuntu wins, if only because it’s the only competent operating system out of the two.
Meanwhile in our network copy tests, we are copying that folder to a server running Windows Server 2003. This gives Windows an advantage since we’re using SMB, but since SMB is the predominant protocol for consumer file server gear, it’s a fair test of such use.
Here it’s nearly a dead heat. Both Ubuntu and Vista need just as long to copy our file collection to the server, meanwhile Windows needs a bit less time to copy that same folder off of the server.
Switching gears, using a 2.6GB ISO we see a clear performance difference. In both copying to and from the server, Ubuntu needs at least 50% longer. Since this test isn’t using a lot of CPU time, our best guess is that Windows is doing some buffering that Ubuntu doesn’t get to do. The transfer rates for Linux are below what the hard drives on either end can manage.
Ultimately for users with lots of local storage, Ubuntu appears to outshine Vista. But for users with lots of remote storage (e.g. a NAS), Vista outshines Ubuntu.
Finally we have the amount of time it takes to start up each operating system, another disk-bound test. Vista is not something I would consider particularly speedy, so I’m a bit surprised that Ubuntu did not manage to outperform it here. The 2 second difference is measurable, but small enough that it won’t make any real impact.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
195 Comments
View All Comments
Telkwa - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Nobody's going to agree with the entire article. I'm just glad to see Anandtech paying some attention, and would welcome any articles, tests, reviews, etc.It's embarrassing to visit the "Linux" tab and see the latest article was posted in July of 2005...
Geraldo8022 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
This is based on Ubuntu and I installed it this past weekend. I am having certain issues with it. Yes, it is free. Overall I like it very much and am pleasantly surprised. But, this has shown that Windows 7 will be a comparative bargain to me. I do not have the time to sit in front of the computer and play with Linux; trying to find out why certain videos don't play and why I am having eye strain and clicking on an audio link that doesn't play and a few more. When I go to the Mint forums I am confronted with a Tower of Babel what with all of the acronyms, and told to go to the terminal and type $surun%(8#**#. Ok, now turn your head and cough.I'll keep Linux on this machine to boot up and play with now and then. It beats solitaire for the time being.
VooDooAddict - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
You hit on a good point. People I've setup with dual booting linux distros and windows begin to appreciate what they are paying for with windows. Typical response is "This is cool (Ubuntu) and I can see why some people like it. But I'm going to stick with windows, it's worth the money to me."They appreciate that Linux could work, but see the "value" in paying form something familiar.
VooDooAddict - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
I run Vista on my main PC. Vista on all the spare LAN gaming PCs. I have an Ubuntu 9.04 VM and Ubuntu Netbook Edition on my old tablet PC (small and netbook like).Locutus465 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Just out of curiosity what user mode were you having guests run in? Even in vista I don't provide anything greater than standard user. With that guests need my password (which they don't have) to mess my machine up. Going back as far as Windows 2000, as long as you pair Windows with good spyware (spybot, or for XP defender if you choose) and antivirus (I like Avast and AVG both free and have nil footprints) you basically don't have to worry about system security as long as the person is running a standard user account.My my parents system, we went from having to wipe and reinstall windows every time I came home from college, to a rock solid system that absoultly never failed when I performed these steps. I still like the XP/2000 behaviour of simply denying access better than the current UAC implementation. But Vista 64 + UAC (active) seems to be secure enough, particularly when paired with the aformentioned anti-virus software.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
For what it's worth, it's an admin account. I know, I know, I could do Limited User. But that tends to just elicit complaints. XP's Limited User mode is embarrassing compared to how well Vista/Win7 does it.Since it's basically just a web browsing laptop anyhow, it's basically a perfect fit for Ubuntu since I wouldn't need to be concerned with Windows malware period.
leexgx - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
i have to agree even XP in its standered/limited user account mode quite hard for stuff to install but not imposable (Vista and win7 with UAC on and an standered account with the admin account passworded should prevent the system from been messed up)aguilpa1 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
It seems the OS does not like core 2 duos and nvidia 9800GTX graphics, something even OSX was able to handle.samspqr - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
* for me, the best possible way to install applications on any OS, but specially in one that is free (libre) is as follows: you search on the internet for the best program to meet your needs, you find it, you copy some code that identifies it, and paste that in your package manager, which then connects to some database, checks that the program is not malware, looks for the latest version, and proceeds to download and install it, not caring whether it's open source or not; this would beat windows/OSX by a wide margin, and also the current ubuntu system, whose "we don't like this software, on philosophical grounds, so it's going to be a pain in the ass for you to install it" attitude is a bit too problematic* it would be nice if the "auto" option in the installer told you what it's going to do with your hard disk before going on to do it; I never use it, out of fear it might try to do something I don't like
* I missed some comment on that section on how Photoshop CS3 costs a lot of $$$, while GIMP is free
* along these lines, the comparison of total costs in time and money of installing windows/OSX/ubuntu, with all their companion programs, is striking
samspqr - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
and about openoffice:* I didn't check this ltely, but aren't there still problems with VBA compatibility? if I can open my xls/xlsm files but I can't run my macros, it's no good; I have a ton of stuff written in VBA, and I'm definitely not doing all that work again
* the ribbon UI in office 2007 is a royal pain: it's only good for the "It looks like you're writing a letter" users, and you can't get rid of it; there's a lot of people doing real work on excel, and none I talked to likes that ribbon thing, they'd all rather stay with excel 2003