X-Git-Url: http://git.nikiroo.be/?p=gofetch.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=test%2Fexpected%2FREDDIT%2F2018-10-09_11-00_BATTLETECH_Linux_beta_l;fp=test%2Fexpected%2FREDDIT%2F2018-10-09_11-00_BATTLETECH_Linux_beta_l;h=66e1bcda46e3ab450350dd995680a645cb2e74cb;hp=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000;hb=254d5bc320fa106f9d0a05c1e32a09adda6f82e0;hpb=7273fd5890478d6ec1f3c566e0c5e4640ab79f15 diff --git a/test/expected/REDDIT/2018-10-09_11-00_BATTLETECH_Linux_beta_l b/test/expected/REDDIT/2018-10-09_11-00_BATTLETECH_Linux_beta_l new file mode 100644 index 0000000..66e1bcd --- /dev/null +++ b/test/expected/REDDIT/2018-10-09_11-00_BATTLETECH_Linux_beta_l @@ -0,0 +1,463 @@ + BATTLETECH LINUX BETA LOADING TEN TIMES FASTER THAN ON WINDOWS + 10? OH, THE IRONY... + + [linux_gaming] 2018-10-09_11-00 + + o Reference: 2018-10-09_11-00_BATTLETECH_Linux_beta_l + o News link: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/9ld2i1/battletech_linux_beta_loading_ten_times_faster/ + o Source link: https://steamcommunity.com/app/637090/discussions/0/1693788384146305062/?ctp=13#c2747650363470418004 + + + ive always noticed that stuff loads much faster on Linux + compared to windows, can someone explain why? + + + ** zee220 + ive always noticed that stuff loads much faster on Linux + compared to windows, can someone explain why? + + ** pwgen-sy100 + Better filesystem's, better IO scheduling, better scheduling + in general, less chances of some stupid ass av to clog up all + the io is what I've found. + + ** breakbeats573 + Unless you open calculator on Ubuntu. It's comical + actually. + + + ** zebediah49 + Also what appears to be more aggressive caching, and less + bloat to burn through memory that would otherwise be + cached. + I've note looked too carefully at it, but Windows machines + usually appear to have a whole lot of free memory, and + relatively little cached. + Meanwhile, my laptop has 10GB of "stuff" just floating + around in memory in case I happen to want it. + + + + ** jhansonxi + Yesterday I updated a Win10 laptop that had been sitting on a + shelf for two years. I could have installed a dozens systems + with *buntu using a online install from a mini boot image, + with all major apps installed and updated, in the time it + took Win10 to finish its updates, update reattempts, and + dozen or so reboots. What's worse is that most of the Win10 + updates were either for the OS or Office only. Any Linux + package manager updates nearly everything and Steam handles + most of the rest. + + + ** Batolemaeus + AV is the worst offender because it hooks into all I/O. But + there's also significant overhead in NTFS when dealing with + many small files. It's partially the cost of the much more + involved security model on NT (and ACL processing). That's + why compiling has an extreme performance penalty on Windows, + since it reads and writes many small files. + + + ** aaronfranke + In addition to what's already been said, EXT4 doesn't + fragment nearly as much as NTFS. + + + ** Craftkorb + Linux is pretty good when it comes to utilizing (otherwise) + free memory, using it to cache ("buffer") parts of your + drives. Just try to do an reading-intensive I/O task, like + find / -name stdio.h . The first may take a while, but then + just rerun the command. It's much quicker, because Linux + cached (in this case) the file structure the first time, and + now can just quickly grab it from there again for the second + time. + Want to see the caching of files (and not structures) in + action? Find any medium sized file (about a gigabyte in + size). Now, call md5sum path/to/the/file on it. Call it again + afterwards. It should be much faster. + Don't have such a file handy? You can generate a "large.file" + using dd if=/dev/zero of=large.file bs=4096 count=262144 . Do + note that by doing this, Linux will already have (all or + parts of) the file cached, the difference between both calls + should be much smaller. + A much more file-centric system basically requires a good I/O + cache to get good performance. Crucial for slow spinning + drives (or worse, magnetic drives), but still really + important for SSDs. + + + ** robot_rover + It’s because windows search and windows compatibility + telemetry are currently using 100% or ur hard disk time + + + ** JackCourtney + Not a game, but GIMP loads so much faster on linux than windows + + ** 8bitcerberus + Pretty much all of them, GIMP, Krita, Inkscape, Scribus, + Kdenlive, Blender, etc. Faster than Windows and way faster + than OS X. Blender is probably the closest I've seen between + the 3 OSes, but it's still measurably faster on Linux, the + others though, there's no contest. + + + ** pooerh + Yeah that's probably mostly because you have gtk libs in + shared memory from either other open apps or even your entire + DE, while GIMP is the only thing that needs them on Windows. + + ** one_is_the_loneliest + Don't Windows apps typically bundle their own deps, so + you'll end up with several of the same dep in memory at a + time? + However, libraries are typically pretty small, so I'm + guessing it doesn't explain most of the difference, but + it's certainly a contributor. + + ** pooerh + Whole UI libraries like gtk or Qt are pretty big + actually, which is why they usually start slower on + Windows than on Linux. Most Windows apps are written + using either Win32 API or .net and these aren't bundled + with apps, these usually start up pretty quickly. + + ** one_is_the_loneliest + Huh, I just figured that Windows apps would bundle + their UI libs, but I guess that makes sense. + + + + + + ** Swiftpaw22 + Now, maybe they're not comparing fresh load to fresh load, but + it wouldn't at all surprise me if it was true when comparing + second+ load to second+ load as Linux has always shined very + brightly when it came to caching games to RAM better than + Windows. Secondary loads in most of the games I've seen load + faster than on Windows. + + ** pdp10 + Both the Linux storage I/O subsystem and the Linux + filesystems themselves are known to be faster than Windows + NTFS. + On the majority of modern games you don't see much of a + difference, though, because the assets are packed into + ordered binary files and then memory-mapped. In a way, the + devs are working around something of a Windows weakness by + doing that (though it's a performance win in general). + That's a common pattern -- developers architect the game to + work around Windows weaknesses, and of course don't take + advantage of the strengths on Linux/POSIX. In principle + someone could go the other direction, and design for some of + POSIX/Linux strengths; I've pondered the topic in posts here + before but neither I nor anyone else has a coherent thesis on + the topic yet. + + ** s0v3r1gn + The largest differences between EXT4 and NTFS that affects + the I/O are the maximum cluster size and the + “allocate-on-flush” method of allocating disk space. + The latest version of NTFS substantially increased the + maximum cluster size and both the cluster size and the + “allocate-on-flush” method are substantially less + impactful on loading times on SSDs than they were on HDDs. + The largest difference in load times is probably caused by + Windows memory management being far more zealous in + purging garbage. + + ** piotrj3 + This. On loading screen there is a lot of memory + allocation and thread creation and so on and this is + where linux is faster. + + + + ** Tom2Die + I've pondered the topic in posts here before but neither I + nor anyone else has a coherent thesis on the topic yet. + I have faith that some day when you mature a bit more and + become a PDP-11 you'll find the answers you seek. + + ** pdp10 + And drop 20 bits from the word? + + ** Tom2Die + Wait, did they really? There must be a good reason, + but I'm not too familiar with older tech. + + ** pdp10 + The short version is that the PDP-10 is a very + large 36-bit mainframe, and the PDP-11 is a + 16-bit minicomputer that only took up a couple of + racks originally -- a small fraction of the + physical size. Even thought the model lines sound + similar, they were very different product lines + that were used for different purposes. + PDP-11s were the second model of computer to run + Unix, and the place where most of Unix was + invented. Only PDP-11s ran Unix until the late + 1970s. Later, the most popular hardware to run + Unix were VAXes, the 32-bit replacement for the + venerable PDP-11s. DEC didn't really like it when + customers bought their hardware but not their + operating systems. Unix never ran on 36-bit + machines. The big tens are rather unique in + history. + However, the command-line syntax was quite + similar on all of the DEC operating systems. + Kildall used much of it in CP/M, and through that + path, much of it went into DOS. DOS also + inherited a bit of syntax from Xenix, which + Microsoft had licensed a year or two prior to the + IBM PC project. + Microsoft wanted to license Xenix to the + different OEM computer manufacturers, and sell + their apps for Xenix in addition to other + operating systems, prior to the IBM PC + opportunity falling into their laps. Microsoft + did continue to make apps for other operating + systems, most fervently MacOS, the home of Excel. + Word was on Xenix first, and only much later came + to the Mac and to the fledgling Windows. + Unix was originally invented for gaming and word + processing, and Microsoft Word was originally + made for Unix. History is stranger than you + think. + + ** Tom2Die + The odd thing is that at one point in time I + knew most of that, but it's the sort of trivia + that if one doesn't engage with it it just + vanishes from memory without notice. + + + + + + + + ** ihjyuhgyhhg + Can confirm, witcher 3 and GTA sa loading on Linux is + unbelievably faster than windows. + + ** sixsupersonic + Which is interesting considering those are windows games + running in wine. + + ** ihjyuhgyhhg + Exactly and also w3 runs at 24fps compared to 29fps on + windows. It was already amazing that game was working but + this. Linux is future. + + + + ** airspeedmph + Not surprised, I have an old X-Plane benchmark where you can see + also a striking difference in loading times (link at the + respective test): + [1]https://youtu.be/M5ygXe9fWR4?t=12 + I also see very long loading times on Windows for Arma3, Rust + and a couple of others, so yeah, not surprised. + Edit TL;DW: X-Plane scenery and all loading in 00:56 min for + SteamOS and 02:33 min for Windows. + + + + + [1] https://youtu.be/M5ygXe9fWR4?t=12 + + ** Leopard1907 + Well , that is a known perk of Linux + Once upon a time PenguinRecordings ( a Youtube channel ) was + doing Linux game benchmarks. + He was always comparing load times on Linux vs Windows. Let it + be Feral ports or something else , always Linux was faster one. + + ** Two-Tone- + PenguinRecordings + I miss his benchmarks. :c + + ** Leopard1907 + Yeah , i also miss. + His enthusiasm was really something else. + Right after doing Doom 2016 via Wine video , he gone mute. + + ** Swiftpaw22 + Yep, sad, wonder what happened to him. Sounds like it + may have been a side project while he was in school. + + ** Leopard1907 + I hope he is enjoying SteamPlay like we do and + living his life. :) + + ** Swiftpaw22 + That doesn't mean we don't still need Linux game + benchmarking. At least we have Phoronix and a few + other youtube channels that do it somewhat. + + + + + + + ** mykro76 + ITT - many apps and games do load faster on Linux. + This seems like something worth promoting to game devs as a + benefit of developing on Linux. How much time must they spend + staring at their own loading screen when tweaking and testing + their game? + + ** Swiftpaw22 + Good point! + + + ** ThenewLore + If it only would load the actual missions and not crash on the + mission title... + + ** Atlas__risen + I noticed a big improvement in FFXV on Linux vs Windows as well. + + ** Offensive_joke_lord + My windows-using friend is always so impressed by how fast my + games load. Well, it's happened twice, once with invisible inc + and once with crusader kings II. I'm pretty sure his computer is + better spec-wise as well + + ** Swiftpaw22 + On the first load, or subsequent loads, or all loads? Because + Linux generally seems faster to load all games on subsequent + loads at least, but also sometimes on first loads as well. + + ** Offensive_joke_lord + Both first loads actually, we only play, and have only + played, those games together at my house + P.S. (yes, they're both singleplayer haha, we have fun + playing singleplayer games and exchanging the controls.) + P.P.S. (we even divide controls, one time we had 3 people + and we played the binding of isaac where one person moved, + one attacked, and the other used items) + + ** Swiftpaw22 + Cool, and sounds fun, playing together is always best! + :3 + + + + ** Greydmiyu + For me it is both. But that is because when I dumped Win10 + off my gaming rig I purposely went the LVM route so I + could clear off my largely unused SSD and make it a + [1]cache for my HDD. + The problem I had before was that I would get a game, put + it on the SSD for fast loading, then move on to another + game and not swap the games out from the SSD. With LVM + using the SSD as a cache anything I use often gets loaded + onto the SSD. If it ever fills up stuff I've stopped using + gets removed from SSD. No need for me to manage it + manually. + Recently it has been Warframe and World of Warcraft that + take up the bulk of my time. From boot to shutdown about + 80-90% of my file-system calls hit the SSD. I have a 120Gb + cache for a 2Tb drive and so far it's only about 60% + utilized. + A few months of that without touching the Win10 drive I + still have sitting there and I can drop the cache, add the + 1Tb of space to my volume, expand my file system, put the + cache back on and have a 3Tb seamless logical volume to + play with. :) + + + + + [1] + https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/using-lvms-new-cache- + feature/ + + ** Swiftpaw22 + The problem I had before was that I would get a game, + put it on the SSD for fast loading, then move on to + another game and not swap the games out from the SSD. + With LVM using the SSD as a cache anything I use often + gets loaded onto the SSD. If it ever fills up stuff + I've stopped using gets removed from SSD. No need for + me to manage it manually. + I was about to ask wtf the point of this would be, lol, + but that clears things up, thanks! + I guess since RAM is more expensive than a SSD, having + the SSD cache things makes sense as long as RAM is + still used first and foremost for file caching. + + have a 3Tb seamless logical volume to play with + As long as you have a backup somewhere of all your + important stuff! Since HDDs are big and cheap I prefer + just using one big one. Hell, there are 10TB ones out + now and higher. + + ** Greydmiyu + As long as you have a backup somewhere of all your + important stuff! Since HDDs are big and cheap I + prefer just using one big one. Hell, there are 10TB + ones out now and higher. + These are the two largest drives I have. I used to + have Win10 on the 1TB and used the 2TB to record + gaming videos. When I wanted to switch I realized I + could just drop Linux on the 2TB drive and have the + 1TB Win10 to fall back to if my litmus test for + Linux wasn't passed this time around (Warframe & WoW + being playable). + Being able to merge the 1TB into the file system is + just an added bonus for when I'm ready to get rid of + the safety blanket. Been a month and I think I've + thought about booting to that drive... once? But the + desire to try Destiny 2 again passed. :) + + + + + + ** yoshi314 + too bad this beta won't load its own saves. i am reluctant to + replay game from scratch again, because neither autosaves nor my + manual saves will load. + + ** Dakkaface + Haven't have that issue myself, it's been working for me + aside from some graphical glitches. Hopefully they get it + working for everyone soon. + + + ** MJBrune + I will say while I do think there is some sort of faster load on + linux, one user randomly staying on a forum shouldn't really be + big news and certainly shouldn't be held as true to any real + means. + + ** Swiftpaw22 + Linux loading times being faster for many games, especially + during 2nd+ loads, is 100% confirmed. As for this particular + game, other users have confirmed the same thing within this + very post. + So, while wanting evidence is amiable, we already have it. + + ** MJBrune + I mean sure. And there are plenty of benchmarks to show + it. I just think "10 times" is a bit excessive and random. + I dunno. Am not trying to crap on your joke either. + + ** Swiftpaw22 + I don't know how accurate "10" is hehe, but some of the + benchmark videos show huge differences, so I totally + get someone say "10 times faster". But we don't have to + be overly anal, they just mean it's "much faster" I'm + sure, and that much is confirmed. + Nothing against anal. :3 + + + + +