according to this review: http://distrocenter.linux.com/distrocenter/06/03/08/2321254.shtml?tid=107 "FC5 runs on a 2.6.15 kernel and uses a branded version of GNOME 2.14 as its default desktop. Although GNOME 2.14 is roughly twice as fast as earlier versions when installed in other distributions, little of this acceleration is visible in FC5. A large part of this relative slowness is due to the default enabling of SELinux -- turn it off, and GNOME is as much as 60% faster."
turing off selinux makes gnome 60% faster... can this be true? how does selinux affects gnome perfomance?
dragoran wrote:
according to this review: http://distrocenter.linux.com/distrocenter/06/03/08/2321254.shtml?tid=107 "FC5 runs on a 2.6.15 kernel and uses a branded version of GNOME 2.14 as its default desktop. Although GNOME 2.14 is roughly twice as fast as earlier versions when installed in other distributions, little of this acceleration is visible in FC5. A large part of this relative slowness is due to the default enabling of SELinux -- turn it off, and GNOME is as much as 60% faster."
turing off selinux makes gnome 60% faster... can this be true? how does selinux affects gnome perfomance?
-- fedora-selinux-list mailing list fedora-selinux-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
nm... old review used a debug enabled kernel
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 12:03 +0100, dragoran wrote:
dragoran wrote:
according to this review: http://distrocenter.linux.com/distrocenter/06/03/08/2321254.shtml?tid=107 "FC5 runs on a 2.6.15 kernel and uses a branded version of GNOME 2.14 as its default desktop. Although GNOME 2.14 is roughly twice as fast as earlier versions when installed in other distributions, little of this acceleration is visible in FC5. A large part of this relative slowness is due to the default enabling of SELinux -- turn it off, and GNOME is as much as 60% faster."
turing off selinux makes gnome 60% faster... can this be true? how does selinux affects gnome perfomance?
-- fedora-selinux-list mailing list fedora-selinux-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
nm... old review used a debug enabled kernel
Yes, saw that review and asked its author for more detail, but he had already scrubbed the test machine for another review. Even with a debug-enabled kernel, I don't see any reason why there would be such an overhead from SELinux. One possible explanation might be that some background process was hitting an AVC denial due to yet another missing permission in the policy, thereby putting load on the audit system and flooding audit.log, which would slow down the system.
Dnia 03/19/2006 11:59 AM, Użytkownik dragoran napisał:
how does selinux affects gnome perfomance?
I've read this mail → http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-March/msg00580.html and I also wanted to ask how SELinux actually affects performance :)
It's really strange that no one have made new benchmarks. This should be quite easy for someone who did it in the past (or am I wrong?). _Correct_ comparison between SELinux and AppArmor performance would be also nice. IMHO actuall situation really hurts SELinux from the marketing point of view (I mean outdated information).
Regards, Dawid
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org