PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] Fastest Linux Distro?



SynonM
May 18th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Update ----> I turned my lazy bum right back to Ubuntu, but if you know your stuff try a more technical distro.


Hi, I am looking for the fastest Linux OS.

including boot time...

I was looking into Slackware OS's, Arch and Haiku.

and here

http://floyd-linux.pappapc.com/

:popcorn:

tips and opinions please...

StrayEddy
May 18th, 2011, 07:58 PM
Puppy Linux, definitly one of the fastest. Can run entirely in RAM.

My old laptop has a dead hard drive, i can run puppy with it.

It s the fastest, cause it loads in RAM. And it s really a distro that works out-of-the-box.

You have access to the repository just like in ubuntu (lots of software there to choose).

Really really really easy to install

Arch (not fast and easy install)
SliTaz(doesnt come with all the drivers for wireless connections)

SynonM
May 18th, 2011, 08:03 PM
Puppy Linux, definitly one of the fastest. Can run entirely in RAM
:KS

thanks and please explain more about why you like(d) it?
:popcorn:

el_koraco
May 18th, 2011, 08:03 PM
Arch!

mikewhatever
May 18th, 2011, 08:07 PM
Not sure it will suit you, but still, Tiny Core Linux (http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html).

StrayEddy
May 18th, 2011, 08:11 PM
:KS

thanks and please explain more about why you like(d) it?
:popcorn:


Check out the edit of my post ;)

potat
May 18th, 2011, 08:16 PM
Puppy Linux, definitly one of the fastest. Can run entirely in RAM

When I first used Puppy, I was pretty sure that applications were loading before I released the mouse button from clicking on them.

Puppy is small (it loads itself into RAM on boot!) and fast. It comes with a desktop environment and applications and everything.

Arch is fast, bare-bones and highly customizable. You pretty much have to build it from the ground up.

Slackware is similar to Arch but its package manager doesn't check dependencies, so only use Slackware if you care enough to have total control over every single program on your system.

snowpine
May 18th, 2011, 08:17 PM
I found SliTaz to be the fastest on my very old hardware.

StrayEddy
May 18th, 2011, 08:18 PM
When I first used Puppy, I was pretty sure that applications were loading before I released the mouse button from clicking on them.


Yeah me too lol, that really freaked me out (telepathy...)

Faster than its shadow hehe

Anadon
May 18th, 2011, 08:23 PM
I've looked at this recently, and you need to declare what you define as "fast." Fast could mean the most responsive, or it could mean the fastest in processing information. When it comes to responsiveness, really any distro that lives in RAM is going to be amazing. In terms of speed of execution and less time in the kernel, the answer according to what I've read, isn't linux--its BSD. openBSD is great for servers because it handles and scales better than the linux kernel and freeBSD has more rapid development and is what most BSD users use (I think...).

SynonM
May 18th, 2011, 08:30 PM
Arch!

what is that... a comic bubble?


:popcorn:


Batman throughs Joker through a wall...

http://ubuntuforums.org/ 4zJ32AAAABHNCSVQICAgIfAhkiAAAAiZJREFUeF7tm2tygzAMh KHTI3H/E3AnQmZqxtlYyGvLmRS2/2TrgT9WhjjpNOlPBETgRgTmhrVuDTFXCXF5/Vxlpd+yDgENvhOuhP/qHW2+bfft+Hl+wVVkJ4UGK1RAg4EWZas29ylb7S+F+uwoDwGlc PnOv7nLuq7HI3xZFj9aHm8EpNA3JH0DLwrtSQWb9ITvqzifaqF fGkd/9Evz3jj6sTbLRApliTn+3QrFO44KQwWhjfFoe/mc9X18WgoNRt6tUFSQd33e3mjFo7LZulbe6HEpNJhomEJRQajE dN3Jz5q31mftrV5dnGdt63qscSnUItM4HqZQtj4qNdk4jspm66 CyWZutJ4WyxBz/boXinmQpqtbPisd11OZDP9bGup4thXqEyHkBJYF57gLqESLnBZ QE5rkLqEeInDef8vvp/ZEq/1SDT0my3r92h093xS84pdDgWyygwUCLsn3WyL+wy2tGfXlXs3W wByjBbErpTF7JWQotYesYE9AOeKVQV8LPIKv9SwnPxvLtgm35/K3jrEb03H7NVYxSXSk0+A4IaDBQSs4tta2f97Atv9cefq0t68M YKRSJdNoC2gkQw4e00d3aPIcqhaLEOm0B7QSI4ebxHTqOtGuOx UbWj8wthUbS3HMJaDDQj7b8yXHckLeNYFZV6aTQKkz1TgJaz6r Kc1SrHf+eYx27scdiVav5AicpNPgmCGgwUKUTAREQAREQARG4K oEHSHq5r452bMgAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
AAAARRRRRCCCHHHH!!!!

no just kidding... tell me why arch's good...

SynonM
May 18th, 2011, 08:37 PM
I've looked at this recently, and you need to declare what you define as "fast." Fast could mean the most responsive, or it could mean the fastest in processing information. When it comes to responsiveness, really any distro that lives in RAM is going to be amazing. In terms of speed of execution and less time in the kernel, the answer according to what I've read, isn't linux--its BSD. openBSD is great for servers because it handles and scales better than the linux kernel and freeBSD has more rapid development and is what most BSD users use (I think...).

I would be loading my fast linux to browse and for simple interface (typing, browsing, some music, video, etc., a maybe to start learning some more 'coding'...stuff like that)

so responsiveness,
I guess.

Joe of loath
May 18th, 2011, 08:55 PM
In my experience, distro is irrelevant when installed to disk. What matters is the programs installed. LXDE will load from the login manager instantly on most new PCs, Gnome 2 in a couple of seconds etc. The more services you install, the longer the PC will take to boot.

SynonM
May 18th, 2011, 11:20 PM
Puppy Linux, definitly one of the fastest. Can run entirely in RAM.

My old laptop has a dead hard drive, i can run puppy with it.

It s the fastest, cause it loads in RAM. And it s really a distro that works out-of-the-box.

You have access to the repository just like in ubuntu (lots of software there to choose).

Really really really easy to install

Arch (not fast and easy install)
SliTaz(doesnt come with all the drivers for wireless connections)


It is truly fast, but has no driver support for my realtek wifi card.
Same problem as backtrack

m_duck
May 19th, 2011, 12:08 AM
Arch is quick.
Crux is quick (probably more so).
Slackware is quick, though boot time after install is slow - you'd have to work at that. It's good fun pulling apart the /etc/rc.d/* files though :twisted:

It all depends how much time you want to spend getting to know/fiddling with/breaking the system in question.

mikewhatever
May 19th, 2011, 01:21 AM
Here is an Arch Speed Comparison (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_arch_faster&num=1). Hope you like it.:biggrin:

boydrice
May 19th, 2011, 01:29 AM
I've looked at this recently, and you need to declare what you define as "fast." Fast could mean the most responsive, or it could mean the fastest in processing information. When it comes to responsiveness, really any distro that lives in RAM is going to be amazing. In terms of speed of execution and less time in the kernel, the answer according to what I've read, isn't linux--its BSD. openBSD is great for servers because it handles and scales better than the linux kernel and freeBSD has more rapid development and is what most BSD users use (I think...).

All of the BSDs are great for servers but I don't think it is generally accepted that OpenBSD scales better than Linux or any other BSD. FreeBSD is very popular in the webserver side as it is designed for high performance. That being said I believe Linux is known for its ability to scale in the enterprise.

SynonM
May 19th, 2011, 01:49 AM
Here is an Arch Speed Comparison (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_arch_faster&num=1). Hope you like it.:biggrin:
Thanks...

:popcorn:

Very helpful.

C!oud
May 19th, 2011, 02:36 AM
Here is an Arch Speed Comparison (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_arch_faster&num=1). Hope you like it.:biggrin:

Comparisons like that are useless, Arch is only as fast as you the user makes it.

SynonM
May 19th, 2011, 02:40 AM
Anybody try this.

http://www.zevenos.com


?
:popcorn:

boydrice
May 19th, 2011, 03:57 AM
This notion that Arch is somehow faster than other distros is really just an assumption. The idea assumes that the user will setup their system in a minimal way. You can easily install whatever you would like, enable as many services as suits you and then end up with a system that performs similar to a prepackaged distro. There is nothing inherit about arch that would make perform faster than Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, CRUX, FreeBSD, etc. It boils down to apps and services more than anything specific about the distro.

Cope57
May 19th, 2011, 04:31 AM
Use a minimal Linux install. As mentioned in this thread, the distribution is only as fast as the applications installed. As for the fastest Linux distribution, it would be how well the distribution is configured to your hardware.

Asking for the fastest Linux is like asking for the best ice cream, cars, and any other opinionated question. There is no right answer, just go install Linux, and configure it to your hardware, with the least amount of applications running. Then you can say it is the fastest for your system.

Desktop environments are also key to a systems speed. Using Gnome or KDE are not good choices for a fast system. There are many other desktop environments that are less resource intensive that slow a system down. Choose different desktops to determine the balance of speed and functionality for you.

It is all about choice, choose your own distribution, and configure it.

Rubi1200
May 19th, 2011, 07:50 AM
Here is an Arch Speed Comparison (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_arch_faster&num=1). Hope you like it.:biggrin:

Thanks for the link; interesting comparison as well.

SynonM
May 19th, 2011, 09:36 AM
Use a minimal Linux install. As mentioned in this thread, the distribution is only as fast as the applications installed. As for the fastest Linux distribution, it would be how well the distribution is configured to your hardware.

Asking for the fastest Linux is like asking for the best ice cream, cars, and any other opinionated question. There is no right answer, just go install Linux, and configure it to your hardware, with the least amount of applications running. Then you can say it is the fastest for your system.

Desktop environments are also key to a systems speed. Using Gnome or KDE are not good choices for a fast system. There are many other desktop environments that are less resource intensive that slow a system down. Choose different desktops to determine the balance of speed and functionality for you.

It is all about choice, choose your own distribution, and configure it.


:popcorn:


We good I am still using an Ubuntu-like distro called zevenos & I like it.

-net works out the box
-it is fast, but not as fast as puppy linux.

8)

Smilies
:popcorn: :grin: :eek: :smile: :razz:

Spice Weasel
May 19th, 2011, 09:58 AM
The fastest I have seen is Alpine. Tiny Busybox base, runs entirely from memory, and only uses 12mb of memory on boot, add on 20 if you want Xfce.

SynonM
May 19th, 2011, 01:12 PM
The fastest I have seen is Alpine. Tiny Busybox base, runs entirely from memory, and only uses 12mb of memory on boot, add on 20 if you want Xfce.

What about out-of-the box compatability?

:popcorn:

Spice Weasel
May 19th, 2011, 04:13 PM
What about out-of-the box compatability?

:popcorn:

That's overrated. Why waste megabytes having out of the box compatibility when users can install compatibility with one or two commands? :)

silex89
May 20th, 2011, 05:00 AM
I got really good results on Zenwalk (Slackware based) running on a virtual machine, it boots faster than my ubuntu with all resources lol

cafejunkie
May 20th, 2011, 06:42 AM
DSL, TinyCore, Puppy, Arch, Gentoo. And of course, FreeBSD!

Honestly, you can make any distro fast and or responsive by keeping things minimal. Defaults are never a good idea. I find the speed of Arch on par with Debian once I have all the packages and services I use installed and running. Same thing with Gentoo (the 'optimisations' you get from compiling everything from source are barely noticeable on most modern systems).

Another thing you can do to save space and increase speed a bit is strip out all the kernel modules that you don't need.

Have fun!