3 ms·

There's a number of fundamental problems with Phoronix benchmarks; one of them is building software in a wrong way (using vanilla sources, without neccessary pa

by trasz 7y ago

There's a number of fundamental problems with Phoronix benchmarks; one of them is building software in a wrong way (using vanilla sources, without neccessary patches), and often simply measuring compiler and not the operating system itself.

csdreamer7 7y ago
> using vanilla sources, without neccessary patches Why is that a problem? From a 3rd benchmark point of view testing the official tarball is the most relevant point to test for a Linux using audience. Different distros has different patches. Some don't even patch the software.
- trasz 7y ago
  Because upstream often uses defaults that are fine for Linux, but not necessarily anything else. That’s why one should use official ports/packages, instead of hacking things together like its ‘90s.
LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
"Das Balkenspiel ist schlechter Stil." "The bargraph game is lame." edit: To expand on this, there is/was one person who tried to tackle this in a meaningful way. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20070607182125/http://www.coyotegulch.com/products/acovea/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070607182125/http://www.coyote... The bitrotten remains of this can be found here: [2] https://github.com/Acovea/libacovea https://github.com/Acovea/libacovea I'm aware of academic research regarding HPC and superoptimizing, but no one has applied that to generalized distro testing, so far. (At least not in public.) I think this should be a hook in some reproducible build system. But everyboody seems to have caved in against the complexity explosion this would involve. And build times. OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, KDE, Gnome....the HORROR!