Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Beans
    10
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simian Man View Post
    Linux is Linux is Linux. The upstream sources are largely the same between different distros. So why would one be significantly faster than another? Magic?


    That only holds if you use 32-bit Linux. Anyone who cares that much about performance is likely using 64-bit Linux anyway.



    Agreed.
    I can't believe I didn't of think that, I really should be moving 64-bit myself.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Beans
    7,744

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Arch can be slower than Ubuntu, if you set it up that way.

    I always thought the main "advantages" of Arch were its minimal install process, excellent DIY documentation, and rolling release of new applications.

    Arch is only "fast" if that is your goal and you set it up that way.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Beans
    1,163
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    I have used both and I think both can be as fast as you want (considering from a minimal ubuntu install). Arch still wins me because of the rolling release system.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielrmt View Post
    I have used both and I think both can be as fast as you want (considering from a minimal ubuntu install). Arch still wins me because of the rolling release system.
    Since you like rolling release, you might be interested in sidux as well.
    The finding of unity in variety is really what we call knowledge..... Vivekananda.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Beans
    7,744

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxforall View Post
    Since you like rolling release, you might be interested in sidux as well.
    Arch and sidux are really two opposite sides of the "rolling release" coin, in my experience.

    sidux is a fringe use case of the vast Debian project, whose main focus is cranking out an extremely stable release every couple of years. While sidux is often called "rolling release" it is subject to ebbs and flows in development based on the Debian Stable release cycle ("soft freeze"). sidux is KDE-centric and is released as a Live CD with a speedy graphical installer.

    Arch has no time-based releases; the entire and sole focus of the project is to create a "pure" rolling release. It is desktop-agnostic and is typically installed from a minimal netinstall, with the end user determining exactly what form the finished system will take. The apps tend to be a little newer than in sidux, too, the "nonfree" stuff is trivially easy to install, and the community is generally more tolerant of experimentation beyond the approved methods.

    So, while sidux and Arch are two of the best rolling release distros, I would say the similarity ends there. If you want to spend an afternoon molding your own ideal system, Arch is for you; if you want a speedy KDE desktop in less than 20 minutes, you can't beat sidux. I have had very positive experiences with each of them and nothing but respect for both projects.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Williams Lake
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Quote Originally Posted by andamaru View Post
    Arch is optimized for i686 architectures so it will be faster than Ubuntu(assuming Ubuntu isn't using i686) on newer CPU. Because of the nature of Arch Linux the average user of the distribution is only going to have the services and applications they want running in the background, this will also speed up the distribution.

    In conclusion, If you were to go and install Arch Linux it would be faster than Ubuntu is. How much faster or if it will be noticeable is another question.
    Code:
    Linux redstone 2.6.32-22-generic #33-Ubuntu SMP Wed Apr 28 13:27:30 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
    This on my Compaq Mini 110, with atom n270 cpu.

    From my experience on older hardware, There really isn't that much difference between an Arch install and a minimal Ubuntu install, not enough to be noticeable.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Beans
    1,163
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxforall View Post
    Since you like rolling release, you might be interested in sidux as well.
    I have already tried it (the XFCE edition), but I still prefer Arch. To each their own...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Beans
    359

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    They did not measure boot time, ergo the main difference is gone :/

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Beans
    20

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxforall View Post
    Agreed with the Placebo part, actually they go through such pains installing Arch that its their belief that its gotta be fast, same with Gentoo which was tested as well sometimes earlier and it really didn't set Ubuntu on fire.
    If you are referring to the Linux Magazine tests, the tests were flawed. Everyone on the Gentoo forums that examined the benchmarks disagreed with the testing methodology employed, which involved a system that was in a configuration that Gentoo users never use.

    The main speed benefits from Gentoo are the following, ordered from relatively most important to relatively least important:

    1. A minimal installation.
    2. USE Flags, which allow unneeded program features to be stripped from the compiled binaries.
    3. Optimized kernels, which typically contain both kernel and rcu preemption support, which are needed for smooth desktop environments.
    4. Optimized compiler flags, which further trim binary sizes and improve execution speeds.


    Ubuntu on the other hand has a kitchen sink approach to installations and program features, so it has tons of background services that are unnecessary, bloated binaries that contain features that are never used and generic optimizations that were intended for the original Pentium processor.

    There is a huge difference between Ubuntu and Gentoo Linux in the areas that matter, predominantly system boot times, application load times, and overall system responsiveness.

    Quote Originally Posted by danielrmt View Post
    I have used both and I think both can be as fast as you want (considering from a minimal ubuntu install). Arch still wins me because of the rolling release system.
    Have you tried Gentoo Linux? It has a rolling release system too and is a bit better at handling library upgrades that break API compatibility because of its source based approach to installation. When an upgrade (e.g. icu 4.2 to 4.4) breaks software, you can just run revdep-rebuild and Gentoo's package manager will automatically detect and recompile all of the affected software.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Beans
    20

    Re: Arch really faster than Ubuntu?

    Quote Originally Posted by cariboo907 View Post
    Code:
    Linux redstone 2.6.32-22-generic #33-Ubuntu SMP Wed Apr 28 13:27:30 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
    This on my Compaq Mini 110, with atom n270 cpu.

    From my experience on older hardware, There really isn't that much difference between an Arch install and a minimal Ubuntu install, not enough to be noticeable.
    While I know that you are talking about Arch, I think that there are merits to distributions that strive for efficiency. Gentoo being one of them, despite its real focus being on customizability, tends to be faster than Ubuntu. If you think otherwise, tell that to the guy who posted the following thread on the Gentoo forums:

    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t...ighlight-.html

    Ubuntu has a great deal of bloat and according to him (in another post he made at the Gentoo forums), switching from Ubuntu to Gentoo reduced his system's memory usage from 400MB to 200MB during a typical session and that is with the same applications in use.

    Ubuntu has a ton of unnecessary software features built into it by its package managers on the off-chance that some person might need it, on top of generic code optimizations that are intended for the original Pentium. The result is that many binaries are bloated with both unnecessary code and duplicated code that allows various processors to have "optimized codepaths".

    The lower memory footprint that Gentoo Linux has translates into more available memory available for use as cache by the kernel, which results in a more responsive system. There is no getting around that.


    By the way, here is the output of uname -a for my laptop, with its actual name replaced with the term "Laptop" for privacy purposes:

    $ uname -a
    Linux Laptop 2.6.34 #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue May 18 09:57:44 EST 2010 i686 Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
    Notice it uses a non-generic SMP PREEMPT kernel, which is something that is not available on Ubuntu and also something that as far as I know, is not available on Arch as well.
    Last edited by Shining Arcanine; May 19th, 2010 at 09:37 PM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •