1/12/2023 0 Comments Quick desktop ubuntu on windows![]() The native Ubuntu build took 5 minutes and 38 seconds, while the Ubuntu on Windows build took 8 minutes 47 seconds. Note that we’re using the default configuration for the build (defconfig), and we’re telling the compiler to use 4 CPUs (-j 4), since my Intel i7 is dual-core, hyperthreaded. To reproduce these tests, you’ll need to: It’s much closer to “real world” use cases than some of the academic benchmarks we’ve run above. The native Ubuntu machine averaged 935 Mbps, while the Ubuntu on Windows average 805 Mbps of bandwidth.įinally, let’s take a tried and true performance benchmark at every Linux developer is familiar with - let’s build the kernel! The beauty of this sort of test is that it includes lots of CPU number crunching (compilation) as well as tons of disk reads (loading libraries and source files) and disk writes (binary output). I’m running an iperf server on an Ubuntu machine hardwired to a Gigabit network:Īnd we’re going to connect the iperf client from the native Ubuntu machine, and the Ubuntu on Windows machines: Specifically, we’re testing TCP bandwidth, using the iperf utility. It seems pretty clear that the Ubuntu on Windows writes are not entirely synchronous to disk. While we used that same flag on the Windows test, it seems that Windows doesn’t yet know what to do with that flag. The flag that we’re sending the dd command, oflag=dsync, is supposed to guarantee synchronous writes to disk - ensuring that every single byte is in fact written to disk and not cached in a buffer in memory. Interestingly, the native Ubuntu test yields about 147 MB/s average write speed to disk, while the Ubuntu on Windows environment average 248 MB/s write speed to disk! How is that possible? Well, it’s a bit of trickery on the Windows part. When dealing in heavy IO, Ubuntu on Windows does involve a bit more overhead.įor our disk performance test, we ran the following command:ĭd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1G count=1 oflag=dsyncīasically, we’re writing a 1GB file of zero’s, synchronously, to disk. This difference exposes a bit of a difference in the IO performance of the two systems. Native Ubuntu was able to move data through memory at 4,253 MB/s, while Ubuntu on Windows worked at 2,309 MB/s. Here, we’re moving 100G of data through memory. To execute our Memory benchmark, we ran the following: For CPU bound workloads, Ubuntu on Windows should perform just as well as Ubuntu running natively on hardware: To execute our CPU benchmark, we ran the following:Īnd, we see almost identical results! Basically 2.8 seconds to run 10,000 CPU instructions, in both cases (Ubuntu on Windows was ever so slightly faster, in fact, in these runs). If you want to reproduce these tests, you may need to: We’ll use the utilities sysbench, dd and iperf, as well as compile the Linux kernel to do our benchmarking. We’ll first run each test in Ubuntu running natively on the hardware, and then reboot, and run the same benchmarks on the same machine running Ubuntu on Windows. Let’s run some benchmarks on the CPU, Memory, Disk, and Network. ![]() My primary laptop is a Lenovo x250, with an Intel i7-5600U CPU, 16GB of RAM, a 512GB Transcend SSD, and a 2TB Samsung SSD. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |