Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Is SUPER Superior?

Filed under
Reviews
SUSE
-s

SUPER is a project to optimize SuSE for speed and performance. In looking for an idea for my next article, I thought this project's lastest effort might make an interesting review. It's based on OpenSuSE's latest release, which is 10.0 RC1. Being concerned with speed and performance, this review could not help but compare SUPER's times with that of OpenSuSE's. However, there was another kink in the armor. I'd already compared OpenSuSE with Mandriva. I got to thinking, was the test fair? Did they use the same boot options? Were the same services and deamons being started at boot? Did they both use parallel=yes? So, what started out as a review of SUPER has morphed into a speed test. Is Super really faster than other two contenders?

SUPER stands for SUSE Performance Enhanced Release. To quote the site: "SUPER is a testbed for anything that makes your SUSE Linux OS perform in a different manner than intended in the more stable and enterprise oriented SUSE Linux tree. This can be a speed improvement geared towards the specialized desktop user or an additional feature that is considered too experimental or dangerous by the main SUSE Linux tree." So, in other words they are trying to make a good thing even better by compiling base packages in a certain order, optimized per architecture (for dvd version), utilizing RUN_PARALLEL=yes, limiting boot time file operations, pre-linking and caching files for boot-up with readahead.

SUPER is quite scaled down in comparison to the OpenSuSE SuSE Linux distribution. Applications are limited in number, and in fact the entire distro comes on one cd and takes about 1.3 gig of hard drive space. As a result the menus are minimized as is the selection of applications. The full rpm list as tested is located here. One could set up an SuSE ftp mirror in yast and install whatever else they'd like I speculate. But otherwise it is almost identical on the surface to SuSE Linux 10.0 rc1.


    



But is SUPER superior in performance?


Given the fact that one needs to take into consideration the startup services, it's also important to note that Mandriva gives the user a choice during install and SuSE presumes to make that decision for us (although can be adjusted later). So, where at first consideration my original times (1, 2) may seem unequal, I submit perhaps they are. Another important note is that SuSE Linux runs RUN_PARALLEL=yes as well as preloads applications with readahead by default as found in SUPER.

For the sake of this rough and unscientific experiment, I installed on Reiserfs, used the same boot options, matched the start up services as closely as possible, booted to run level 3 with vga=normal. The clock is started when the <enter> key is depressed.

Discrepancies between this and previous tests may be contributed to booted run level, frame buffer, and having opened applications previously that boot. Represented below are the averages of 3 time tests for each area, first open of each application.


Time in Seconds




Mdv 2006rc1 OSS 10.0rc1 Super 10.0rc1

Boot 17 24 21.6
X&KDE 21 27.3 15.3
OpenOffice 6 6.6 4.6
Firefox 3 3.3 2
Shutdown 17.6 22.3 21






Versions as tested



Mdv 2006rc1 OSS 10.0rc1 Super 10.0rc1

X&KDE 6.9.0,3.4.2 6.8.2, 3.4.2 6.8.2, 3.4.2
OpenOffice 1.1.5 1.9.125 1.9.125
Firefox 1.0.6 1.0.6 1.0.6
gcc 4.0.1 4.0.2 4.0.2



As you can see, the optimizations in compiling methods of SUPER are having a significant performance increase once the system is booted, whether that was the compile order of the base system or the flags used in the individual applications. However, Mandriva is still smokin' 'em on the boot and shutdown times. There is no clear winner here, as it will depend on personal preference. If you are the type that has 3 month uptimes, you aren't going to care about boot times as much. On the other hand if you are the type that leaves your applications open just about from boot to boot, yet has to reboot to another os often, then application start times might seem less important. Is SUPER superior? It's up to you to decide.

More in Tux Machines

Android Leftovers

The community-led renaissance of open source

With few commercial participants, early free software and open source communities were, by definition, community-led. Software was designed and created organically by communities of users in response to their needs and inspiration. The results, to a degree nobody predicted, were often magical. First-generation open source businesses like Red Hat emerged to respond to these needs. They combined the best of both worlds: the flexibility and control of raw open source with the commercial support that enterprises depend on. These new open source businesses found their opportunity by adding the missing—but necessary—commercial services to community-led open source projects. These services would be costly for organizations to provide on their own and potentially even more costly to do without. One early leader of that era, Cygnus Solutions, even adopted the counter-intuitive tagline "Making free software affordable." But back then, it was always overwhelmingly clear: The commercial vendors were in service of the community, filling in around the edges to enable commercial applications. The community was the star, and the companies were the supporting cast. Read more

Election fraud: Is there an open source solution?

Can open source technology help keep our elections honest? With its Trust The Vote Project, the Open Source Election Technology (OSET) Institute is working on making that a reality for elections in the United States and around the world. The project is developing an open, adaptable, flexible, full-featured, and innovative elections technology platform called ElectOS. It will support all aspects of elections administration and voting, including creating, marking, casting, and counting ballots and managing all back-office functions. The software is freely available under an Open Source Initiative (OSI)-recognized public license for adoption, adaptation, and deployment by anyone, including elections jurisdictions directly or, more commonly, commercial vendors or systems integrators. Read more

Meld is an excellent file and folder comparison tool for Windows and Linux

Ever had two sets of the same files and folders and couldn't decide which one to retain? It may take a long time to actually open each to verify the one that's recent or the one you need; while dates associated with the files may help, they won't all the time as they don't tell you anything about the actual content. This is where file comparison tools can be time-savers. Meld is an open source file comparison tool for Windows and Linux for exactly that purpose. Read more