http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_karmic_old&num=7"Ubuntu 9.10 offers a number of new features to Linux desktop and server users along with other core improvements to this incredibly popular Linux distribution. In a number of our tests today with an older ThinkPad notebook, Ubuntu 9.10 also provided the best performance when compared to earlier Ubuntu releases from the past 18 months. However, in six of the eighteen tests that were run, there were notable performance regressions involving Ubuntu 9.10. Many performance improvements can be attributed to the switch from the EXT3 to EXT4 file-system by default, but in the tests that did not benefit from this newer file-system, it ended up degrading the performance. The ioquake3 performance with the open-source ATI R300 driver is another troubling area with Ubuntu 9.10. Fortunately though when using newer hardware we have not encountered as many performance drops, and even still, most users will find Ubuntu 9.10 worth the upgrade. "
Testissä käytössä ollut laitteisto:
Ubuntu 8.04.3 LTS shipped with the Linux 2.6.24 kernel, GNOME 2.22.3, X Server 1.4.0.90, xf86-video-radeon 4.3.0, Mesa 7.0.3-rc2, GCC 4.2.4, and an EXT3 file-system.
Ubuntu 8.10 had the Linux 2.6.27 kernel, GNOME 2.24.1, X Server 1.5.2, xf86-video-radeon 6.9.0, Mesa 7.2, GCC 4.3.2, and EXT3.
Ubuntu 9.04 is powered by the Linux 2.6.28 kernel, GNOME 2.26.1, X Server 1.6.0, xf86-video-radeon 6.12.1, Mesa 7.4, GCC 4.3.3, and EXT3.
Lastly, the Linux 2.6.31 kernel, GNOME 2.28.0, X Server 1.6.4, xf86-video-radeon 6.12.99, Mesa 7.6, GCC 4.4.1, and the EXT4 file-system are powering
Ubuntu 9.10. All four Ubuntu releases were left with their default settings and packages during our Linux benchmarking process.
The tests we ran across these four latest Ubuntu releases were Tremulous, MPlayer video playback, 7-Zip compression, IOzone, PostMark, AIO-Stress, Dbench, Apache, PostgreSQL, C-Ray, Tachyon, TSCP, FFmpeg, GraphicsMagick, and timed MAFFT alignment. All of these tests were carried out through our open-source benchmarking platform
, the Phoronix Test Suite.
TESTISSÄ 18 OSA-ALUEESTA 6:SSA Karmic Koala selvisi heikoimmin kuin 8.04, 8.10 ja 9.04. Erityistesti Apachen osalta tulos oli suorastaan "hälyttävän heikko".
Sen sijaan esim. PostMark v.1.51 antoi Karmic Koalalle hyvä tuloksen edellisiin verrattuna