Skip to main content
Test Stuff

lemmy - Link to source

Ubuntu 25.10's Rust Coreutils Transition Has Uncovered Performance Shortcomings
Ubuntu 25.10's transition to using Rust Coreutils in place of GNU Coreutils has uncovered a few performance issues so far with the Rust version being slower than the C-based GNU Coreutils. Fortunately there still are a few weeks to go until Ubuntu 25.10 releases as stable and upstream developers are working to address these performance gaps.

Ubuntu 25.10's Rust Coreutils Transition Has Uncovered Performance Shortcomings

www.phoronix.com
#Linux
in reply to rezad

Strit
lemmy - Link to source
Strit
• •
Wasn't rust suppose to both more performant and more memory safe than it's C counterparts?
in reply to Strit

SavvyWolf
lemmy - Link to source
SavvyWolf
• •
Rust and C are the same "tier" of performance, but GNU coreutils has the benefit of several decades of development and optimization that the Rust one needs to catch up with.
in reply to Strit

Mark
friendica (DFRN) - Link to source
Mark
•
Memory and thread safe yes. Performance was more roughly equal, could be faster or slower depending on use case.

Linux reshared this.

in reply to Strit

MonkderVierte
lemmy - Link to source
MonkderVierte
• •
It's more a thing like in ripgrep vs. grep; new algorithms being vastly faster in most cases except in some.
in reply to Strit

balsoft
lemmy - Link to source
balsoft
• •
Rust is fundamentally more limiting than C, even with unsafe. It is often faster if you write naive code (because the Rust compiler can optimize more aggressively due to those same limitations), but an experienced developer with a lot of time for optimization will probably be able to squeeze more performance out of C than they would out of Rust - as you can see in this example. Rust is still better because those limitations all but guarantee that the resulting code will be safer, and the performance differences would be negligible all things considered.
in reply to Strit

Froggie 🐸
lemmy - Link to source
Froggie 🐸
• •

Language isn't everything. While Rust provides some features and safety that C doesn't while being roughly equivalent in performance, the algorithms that developers choose will dominate the performance impact on the program.

GNU core utils has decades of accumulated knowledge and optimisation that results in the speed it has. The Rust core utils should in theory be able to achieve equivalent performance, but differences in the implementation choices between one and another, or even something as simple as the developers not having prioritised speed yet and still focusing on correctness could explain the differences that are being reported.

This entry was edited (5 hours ago)
in reply to rezad

SavvyWolf
lemmy - Link to source
SavvyWolf
• •
This would never happen if it were licensed under GPL. /s
in reply to rezad

yamamoon
ActivityPub - Link to source
yamamoon
• •

This should be avoided like the plague because of the choice to use MIT over GPL.

Any work dedicated to this can and will be stolen by corporations without giving back if they find it useful. This is what happened with Sony and Apple and their respective operating systems. They chose to base them on BSD so they could steal work and not give back to the public.

Do not be fooled.

in reply to yamamoon

atzanteol
lemmy - Link to source
atzanteol
• •
They chose to base them on BSD so they could steal work and not give back to the public.


"Here you can use this as you like, no questions asked"

"Hey! Why did you use that in a way that I told you you could!?!?"

in reply to atzanteol

magz :3
lemmy - Link to source
magz :3
• •
i think the argument here is more that saying "you can use this however you like, no questions asked" is a bad idea because it allows corporations to approriate the work
in reply to rezad

flux
lemmy - Link to source
flux
• •
Rust is great, but might it be a bit premature to replace the venerable coreutils with a project boasting version number 0.2, which I imagine reflects its author's view on its maturity?
⇧