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.
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.
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.
This on my Compaq Mini 110, with atom n270 cpu.Code:Linux redstone 2.6.32-22-generic #33-Ubuntu SMP Wed Apr 28 13:27:30 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
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.
They did not measure boot time, ergo the main difference is gone :/
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:
- A minimal installation.
- USE Flags, which allow unneeded program features to be stripped from the compiled binaries.
- Optimized kernels, which typically contain both kernel and rcu preemption support, which are needed for smooth desktop environments.
- 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.
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.
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:
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.$ 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
Last edited by Shining Arcanine; May 19th, 2010 at 09:37 PM.
Bookmarks