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
ioannis - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
...sorry, I think it's Alt+F2 by default. I'm talking about the 'Run Command' dialog.Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Oh, yes you're right. I stand corrected.sprockkets - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Ubuntu doesn't ship with the firewall on eh? Weird. SuSE's is on, and that has been the default for quite some time. GUI management of it is easy too.clarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
For incoming connections I don't quite grasp what good a firewall will do on a system with no internet-facing services. With no open ports you stand little to gain from adding a firewall, and any internet-facing service you might add, well, you don't want to firewall that anyway.I can see two theoretically plausible arguments for a host-based firewall, but even these don't really stand up in real-world use: 1) a machine that has open ports out of the box (I'm looking at you, Windows), and 2) for the folks who want to police outgoing connections.
In the case of the former, why would we open ports and then block them with a firewall, right out of the box? This makes as much sense to me as MS marketing their own antivirus. Third-party firewalls were rightfully introduced to remedy the silly situation of computers listening on networks where they shouldn't be, but the idea of MS producing a host-based firewall instead of just cleaning up their services profile defies common sense.
In the case of outbound firewalling, I've yet to meet a home user that understood his/her outbound firewall and managed it half-way effectively. Good in theory, usually worse than useless in practice.
db
VaultDweller - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Just because a port/service is open, doesn't mean you want it open to the whole world.Examples:
SMB
NFS
VNC
RDP
SSH
Web (intranet sites, for example)
And the list could go on... and on and on and on, really.
Also, it's erroneous to assume that only 1st party software will want to open ports.
And that is to say nothing of the possibility of ports being unintentionally opened by rogue software, poorly documented software, naughty admins, or clumsy admins.
Host-based firewalls help with all of these situations.
clarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Windows firewall doesn't filter by source. In other words, if you want SMB or any other service open to some peers and not others, Windows firewall can't help you; you'll need a more sophisticated product or a hardware firewall for that.I'm not saying there's no case for host-based firewalls, I'm just saying it's pointless for most users out of the box, where Ubuntu doesn't need it and Windows should be looking at fixing the problem of unneeded services running, rather than just bolting on another fix.
VaultDweller - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
"I can see two theoretically plausible arguments for a host-based firewall, but even these don't really stand up in real-world use"That sounds to me like a claim that there is little or no case for a host-based firewall; at least, that's how I interpreted it.
"Windows firewall doesn't filter by source. In other words, if you want SMB or any other service open to some peers and not others, Windows firewall can't help you"
That is incorrect, and you should check your facts before making such statements. The Windows Firewall can filter by source. Any firewall exception that is created can be made to apply to all sources, to the local subnet only, or to a custom list of IPs and subnets.
The firewall in Vista and Windows 7 goes a step further, as it is location aware. Different ports and services are opened depending on the network you're plugged into, as exemplified by the default behavior of treating all new networks as "Public" (unknown and untrusted) until instructed otherwise.
clarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
"The Windows Firewall can filter by source. Any firewall exception that is created can be made to apply to all sources, to the local subnet only, or to a custom list of IPs and subnets. "In that case I retract my assertion that an out-of-the-box firewall makes no sense in the case of Windows.
As for Ubuntu, or any other desktop OS having no open ports by default, I still see including an enabled firewall by default as superfluous. Meanwhile, firewall GUIs exist for those wishing to add them.
Paazel - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
...not enough pictures. admittedly my interest additionally waned when i read the newest ubuntu isn't be reviewed.philosofool - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I'm not done with this article, which I'm loving. However, there's a grammatical/spelling quibble that's driving me nuts: "nevertheless" is one world.