Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux
No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux
Date: June 3rd, 2005
Topic: Mac
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Johan De Gelas
Buy the Pogue 9780596153281 Snow Leopard
Blank
 Amazon $23.09
 
 

Mac OS X versus Linux

Lmbench 2.04 provides a suite of micro benchmarks that measure the bottlenecks at the Unix operating system and CPU level. This makes it very suitable for testing the theory that Mac OS X might be the culprit for the terrible server performance of the Apple platform.

Signals allow processes (and thus threads) to interrupt other processes. In a database system such as MySQL 4.x where so many processes/threads (60 in our MySQL screenshot) and many accesses to the kernel must be managed, signal handling is a critical performance factor.

Larry McVoy (SGI) and Carl Staelin (HP):
" Lmbench measure both signal installation and signal dispatching in two separate loops, within the context of one process. It measures signal handling by installing a signal handler and then repeatedly sending itself the signal."
Host OS Mhz null null
call
open
I/O
stat slct
clos
sig
TCP
sig
inst
Xeon 3.06 GHz Linux 2.4 3056 0.42 0.63 4.47 5.58 18.2 0.68 2.33
G5 2.7 GHz Darwin 8.1 2700 1.13 1.91 4.64 8.60 21.9 1.67 6.20
Xeon 3.6 GHz Linux 2.6 3585 0.19 0.25 2.30 2.88 9.00 0.28 2.70
Opteron 850 Linux 2.6 2404 0.08 0.17 2.11 2.69 12.4 0.17 1.14

All numbers are expressed in microseconds, lower is thus better. First of all, you can see that kernel 2.6 is in most cases a lot more efficient. Secondly, although this is not the most accurate benchmark, the message is clear: the foundation of Mac OS X server, Darwin handles the signals the slowest. In some cases, Darwin is even several times slower.

As we increase the level of concurrency in our database test, many threads must be created. The Unix process/thread creation is called "forking" as a copy of the calling process is made.

lmbench "fork" measures simple process creation by creating a process and immediately exiting the child process. The parent process waits for the child process to exit. The benchmark is intended to measure the overhead for creating a new thread of control, so it includes the fork and the exit time.

lmbench "exec" measures the time to create a completely new process, while " sh" measures to start a new process and run a little program via /bin/ sh (complicated new process creation).

Host OS Mhz fork
hndl
exec
proc
Sh
proc
Xeon 3.06 GHz Linux 3056 163 544 3021
G5 2.7 GHz Darwin 2700 659 2308 4960
Xeon 3.6 GHz Linux 3585 158 467 2688
Opteron 850 Linux 2404 125 471 2393

Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in creating new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go through extra layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the G5 might not be the fastest integer CPU on earth - its database performance is completely crippled by an asthmatic operating system that needs up to 5 times more time to handle and create threads.

Workstation, yes; Server, no.   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

112 Comments - Last by edchi, 878 days ago
Username:
Password:
No Subject by Methodical, 1631 days ago
I like anands articles way better.

Your drawing too many conclusions off of data you basically call untrustworthy, but I agree your basic conclusion. The OS still needs more work.

I really think leaving out After Effects was a bad idea. Its a perfect benchmark. Plugins that do the exact same calculations on the exact same workfiles. Its also one of the biggest things these macs are used for, but I understand your article to be a bit more server-oriented.

Reply
No Subject by ailleur2, 1631 days ago
Well that was interesting.

Im a big apple fan myself but even i never thought od putting osx server in a server room.
I think the g5 did quite well and had IBM delivered its promise of a 3ghz g5 (and that was supposed to be a year ago) the g5 would have won a couple of tests by a good margin.

If apple/IBM want altivec optimisations, i think theyll have to do it themselves since the interest level is pretty low.

One question though, why wasnt linux installed of the g5 if this was a cpu test? I dont know if it makes a damn of a difference but it whould have put them on equal bases.

Reply
No Subject by ailleur2, 1631 days ago
Oh and the graph on page 5 doesnt display correctly in firefox.

Reply
No Subject by wessonality, 1631 days ago
No Subject by wessonality, 1631 days ago
What about installing Yellow Dog Linux on the XServe?

Reply
No Subject by porkster, 1631 days ago
"Root Me" in Australian slang is the same as "Fxxk Me" in common language. Some people my find a picture in this review offensive.

Reply
No Subject by StuckMojo, 1631 days ago
yes, it seems you've left out a very good method of testing if OSX is the issue: run a powerPC linux distro with the mysql and apache benchmarks and see what happens!

i'd be _really_ interested in the results. see if you can update the article with them.

Reply
No Subject by StuckMojo, 1631 days ago

hmph. you say it yourself in the last paragraph...how come you didn't try it?

Reply
No Subject by JohanAnandtech, 1631 days ago
Porkster: It is a little geekisch Unix joke. Where is your geekish you man spirit?

Wessonality: Our next project if we can keep the G5 long enough in the labs.

Ailleur2: indeed, I agree. The G5 is a potent CPU with a lot of potential. Just give it a bigger L2 and a better memory subsystem. This is an architecture that could last very long by applying a few tweaks, like the P6.

Methodical: All of the benchmarks are trustworthy, they should be looked upon as a whole to get a good picture, not just pick one. About After affects, I indicate that the G5 does very well here (seen other reports on the web), I just didn't have the software in the lab.

I also warned that this was not about "should I buy an Apple or not?". It is just "if performance is what counts for me, where should I position the G5/Mac os X combiantion compared to x86/Linux/Windows ?".



Reply
No Subject by IntelUser2000, 1631 days ago
People, in case some of you misunderstand, the 10.8GB/sec Full Duplex bus means that its two 32-bit 1350MHz bus, rather than one 64-bit bus in the PCs. Its not, 10.8GB/sec x 2 =21.6GB/sec bus, its 10.8GB/sec bus(or more correctly stated 5.4GB/sec x 2). Plus, it says in Apple site that it has TWO(yes two!!!) of the 10.8GB/sec buses, per CPU.

Summary: Per CPU=10.8GB/sec
Per Dual Processor System=21.6GB/sec


Johan, about the AMD TDP number, they never state that its max power, they say its maximum power achievable under most circumstances, its not absolute max power.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 12

Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.
DOWNLOAD vWire Today - FREE TRIAL
Take Control of Your Virtual Infrastructure. Manage VI Data & Prevent Problems.
Download Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System
Streamline Dev processes, Reduce time to market. Try Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, FREE!




Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank




pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information