Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

  1. #1

    Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    After being shocked, stunned and overwhelmed by the precision and speed of Arch, I ran into a brick wall over a wireless card that should, by all rights, mesh perfectly with that OS ... but wouldn't.

    I blame myself for that failure; it's obviously some tweak I haven't discovered or learned, mixed with a liberal measure of Linux newbieness on the whole. Suffice to say, the card worked perfect in Ubuntu but wouldn't in Arch. And I couldn't figure out why.

    Faced with a dealbreaker like that (and for me it was a dealbreaker), I started thinking ... what's the difference between a base Arch install and a Ubuntu server installation? It's a bit heavier, of course, but would it really be that noticeable? And If Ubuntu will configure the wireless card without a hitch, why not start from scratch with a Dapper server and stack packages on top of that?

    I had pecked around with minimal installations a few months ago, trying to make Ubuntu an option on some very old laptops. The low memory installation methods in the wiki give some lightweight GUI options that served as my starting point.

    In short, after two or three tries at minimizing the bulk, I've started with this, on top of a Dapper server installation:

    Code:
    sudo apt-get install x-window-system-core xfce4 xfce4-terminal thunar prelink preload
    That puts X into place and the core XFCE structure. I know IceWM, FluxBox and OpenBox are all faster, but I'm an XFCE fan and I get used to things in certain places. I also wanted to be able to compare it with Arch, and I had been using the xfce-svn repositories.

    Prelink and preload I found on the Xubuntu.info site, along with instructions on how to configure them.

    I don't use a login manager; I just log in at the terminal screen and start the gui with

    Code:
    startxfce4
    For a browser, I use Swiftfox. I find it starts and loads faster. Disabling ipv6 helps too.

    In all, the results were not that different. The test machine was an old Dell Latitude CPx J750GT -- 750Mhz/512Mb/20+20Gb/ATI Rage Mobility M1.

    I can't say that Ubuntu matched my startup times with Arch, but Ubuntu lagged by no more than 7-8 seconds to boot, and 2-3 seconds to start the GUI. That's acceptable to me ... when I have the added bonus of a working wireless card.

    If anyone has suggestions on how to lighten the Ubuntu load, or to tweak the setup further, I'd be happy to hear them.

    Edited, Sept. 23: Since I first posted this at the end of June, I've had the opportunity to collect and try a lot more tweaks that have "narrowed the gap" between Ubuntu's boot and run times, and Arch's lightning-fast delivery.

    Before you get all excitable and start reformatting your drive, I should say that I still consider myself a newb, and it's possible that there are ideas here you might find worthless. Or for that matter, you might find they don't improve things at all for you. Your mileage will vary.

    • Binary video drivers. This will depend on your hardware, of course. But it's probably safe to bet the nvidia drivers (or what have you) will outperform the nv drivers (or what have you).
    • Tweaking ext3 file systems to get the best speed for older machines. Try the ideas here and here.
    • Use a processor-specific kernel. Try this, and if you like, other parts of ubuntu_demon's excellent guide.
    • Clear out unneeded services. This is time-consuming, but worth it.
    • Install InitNG. I'll be honest: I couldn't get this to install, but I've heard that it works wonders.
    • vm.swappiness. This is another tip from ubuntu_demon. As I understand it, if you run your machine with a relative overabundance of memory, that tweak is just a given. In the case of a stripped-down Xubuntu installation, I think it's safe to say if you have more than 96Mb, you're in good shape. (My system only needs 52Mb to boot as I described it above, and has yet to peak over 72Mb.)
    • Reprofile your bootup, then tweak readahead. This will require you to install readahead first, since it's part of the default Ubuntu installations, but if you start with a server install, you didn't get it. Enter sudo aptitude install readahead in a terminal before you try the stuff jdong listed there.

    These are sort of optional. They might increase your boot speed or just make things easier, but that's up to you and your hardware.

    • axely says xfs is the way to go. Although for me, it slowed things down. Setting up xfs is quicker than ext3 + dir_index + journal_data_writeback + noatime, though. It's going to depend on your processor speed and your assessment of the results.
    • Automatically login to XFCE without GDM (or KDM or XDM). It speeds things up when compared to straight K/X/Ubuntu, but if you're comparing things to Arch linux, you'll need to even the playing field.
    • Tune Ubuntu for broadband. This won't interest you if you're not on high-speed internet. Otherwise, your Internet response times might improve.

    As a final note, if you're a fellow tweaker (and I mean that in the technophile sense of the word ... not some other senses ), you might want to install bootchart early in the game. It will give you an idea of what effect your efforts are having, and provide a graphical history for your individual machine.

    I almost forgot! These are some vanity packages that you might want for your new system. These don't speed things up (in some cases, they might actually slow things down ), but they're nice to have and make your system a little more attractive. I'll list them as a code line so you can cut and paste if you like.

    Code:
    sudo aptitude install tango-icon-theme-extras xscreensaver-gl-extra xscreensaver-data-extra thunar xfce4-terminal mousepad xarchiver xfce4-goodies
    As I mentioned a while back, you can get away without thunar, mousepad or a terminal program, but they make things sooo much easier!

    My next project: An Ubuntu server with the Equinox DE as the GUI and XFE for an explorer program. Yowza!

    Cheers!

    Edited, Oct. 7, 2006: Since Edgy hit beta, I've been trying to get a feel for what's changed and how that will affect these tweaks. A couple of them are considerable.

    First, the new startup is far faster (from my perspective) than the startup in Dapper (which is funny, because Dapper seemed like such an improvement over Breezy). I find that there are fewer unnecessary services running than what I was seeing in Dapper (that's going to depend on your hardware, though), and it seems the start/stop procedures are more streamlined.

    Second, there seems to be a change afoot with the processor-specific kernel packages. If you look at linux-686 at packages.ubuntu.com, it now suggests the 686 kernel is the "generic" installed kernel, and the option to install linux-386 is available. So for Pentium II+ (?) users, there does not seem to be a need to install a different kernel. Now remember: I'm no expert, so I could be completely wrong with that, which is why I kind of tapdanced through that last sentence.

    Next, I'm withdrawing my endorsement of Swiftfox, mostly on the advice of people like Kilz who make, in my opinion, a very strong case against using it. Swiftfox isn't distributed freely and it's compiled by a third person to be installed without the option of looking at the source. While I certainly don't disrespect Jason Halme or suspect him of any wrongdoing, it's a point I often preach at Windows users -- the fact that they have no way of knowing exactly what they're installing -- and so I have to follow my own advice on that one.

    Instead I've taken to installing Iceweasel, which is the GNUzilla browser created from the Firefox source code, but without stepping on Mozilla's legal toes. Oddly enough, I find it just as perky as Swiftfox, and I have the added bonus of surfing with a clear conscience.

    An additional tweak that has proven very helpful was this one from jdong, who suggested running sudo e2fsck -fD /dev/hdXY from a live CD desktop. (That last part is important.) e2fsck will optimize the directories on that drive, and I've found the speed difference to be noticeable (as much as 4-5 seconds on a 1Ghz machine). Try it by booting to a live CD after you've installed your system, then issuing the command from a terminal. Remember that it's only an option if you're using ext3.

    Finally, I've found it was very worthwhile to experiment with Openbox. For what I've seen, Openbox is every bit as flexible and beautiful as XFCE, and yet makes a vast improvement again over the speed of XFCE. For as fast as Xubuntu is when compared to Ubuntu, Openbox is every bit faster. I might be going out on a limb here, but if you really want to eke every last bit of speed out of your rig, you really have to try one of the *box sisters -- Openbox, Fluxbox or Blackbox (and IceWM, but that doesn't end with *box ).

    Cheers!

    Edited: Dec. 20, 2006: I should have mentioned this a while ago, but I consolidated most of these tips and tweaks into a howto for Edgy. Rather than pollute (?!) the forums with yet another post about speeding up Ubuntu, I put it on my humble blog. I know, I know: It's tacky to link to my blog, but the fact of the matter is, it's not anything you haven't already read through -- it's just reorganized into a step-by-step guide. So don't feel obliged to visit. Cheers!

    Edited, Nov. 6, 2007: Wow, it seems like forever since I first wrote this thread. Things have changed a lot since Dapper. I still keep up with the changes, but for all practical purposes the tweaks and ideas are in a guide on my blog. There's still the version for Edgy, as well as Feisty and Gutsy editions. Please feel free to check them out and make suggestions. I haven't visited this thread in a long time, but I haven't suddenly stopped trying to squeeze speed out of Ubuntu either. Cheers!
    Last edited by K.Mandla; November 6th, 2007 at 08:32 AM. Reason: Added blatantly self-aggrandizing link to now-infamous blog post.
    Ubuntu user #7247 :: Linux user #409907
    inconsolation.wordpress.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Beans
    515

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    I couldn't get it done simply.
    I removed all services possible and ran just an equal ubuntu and arch install. arch just annihilated ubuntu this time around (the drake is very slow compared to breezy for me...i dont know why).
    shame you couldn't get your wireless working ,arch really is a beautiful distro...maybe you should give it another go...its my choice right now.

  3. #3

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    I might try it again. The silliness of it all is that I'm all of four inches from the PCMCIA port to the router, so the wireless is sheer vanity. And I have a nifty PCMCIA wired connector.

    For the record, I removed a few other packages, just to see if I could trim the fat even more. I dropped the jfs and xfs utilities and vim (which I detest), along with some others. I doubt it made much of a difference, but you never know.
    Ubuntu user #7247 :: Linux user #409907
    inconsolation.wordpress.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    270
    Distro
    The Feisty Fawn Testing

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    I did a "server" install of Ubuntu and then used aptitude to add only the parts of "ubuntu-desktop" that I actually use. I ended up with a Gnome desktop that runs on around 80 megs of RAM (seems to vary from 69-85, I have no idea why). It is extremely snappy and starts up much faster than a normal Ubuntu. It's not quite Arch, but I'm very happy with it since I get the benefits of this community and apt-get to make up for the small performance difference.

    I still need to install the i686 kernel and make a few other tweaks too, so the performance gap may get even smaller.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Beans
    515

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    the thing is, it's not the 686 which makes it so fast....tests have been done that show this. (and slackware would make ubuntu look bad as well)...I'm not sure exactly what it is (packaging technique, patches, layout?).
    @hizaguchi - does that take a long time to piece together what you need? I thought about it, but usually end up doing a full install and then removing the pieces I dont need...it seemed to go quicker...and ended up with 70-80 megs at boot like you .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    270
    Distro
    The Feisty Fawn Testing

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    Quote Originally Posted by woedend
    @hizaguchi - does that take a long time to piece together what you need? I thought about it, but usually end up doing a full install and then removing the pieces I dont need...it seemed to go quicker...and ended up with 70-80 megs at boot like you .
    Didn't take me very long. I just used aptitude and went through the list of dependencies for "ubuntu-desktop" and marked just the stuff I wanted, and then let it install. Somehow though I ended up without APM support and had to go back and install apmd and libapm to be able to suspend to ram. Thing is, my memory usage is creeping upward as I install new software (stuff that isn't running, like F-spot and Banshee). I had it trimmed down to 69 megs, but now it's up around 85 just from installing stuff like that. I'm not really clear on how that happens. Wasn't a problem with Arch.

    Anyhow, I'm curious too about what makes Arch so fast if it isn't the optimization. Maybe the fact that it is usually running a more up-to-date kernel and xorg than Ubuntu?

  7. #7

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    I asked the same question on the Arch forums, and in between the funny replies, it seems that some folks blame the initscripts, while others point to optimization -- and others to bloat -- as the reason Arch runs faster.

    Either way, I'm still tweaking my Dapper setup to see if I can make it run a wee bit faster. Any suggestions? At this point I'm just searching packages.ubuntu.com to see what's in ubuntu-minimal, subtracting anything that looks trimmable, and seeing if I can still boot.

    If there's a better way, I'd be willing to listen. Should I recompile the kernel and take out the unnecessary?
    Ubuntu user #7247 :: Linux user #409907
    inconsolation.wordpress.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    US
    Beans
    130
    Distro
    Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    I installed arch, but it did not have the madwifi drivers and so it didn't detect my atheros wifi card. Also I coulndn't figure out how to install Xfce so I had no X.
    I'm running xubuntu again with some extra stuff removed, and it's not bad, but I really wanted to try Arch because everyone raves about how fast it is...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Beans
    71

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    I'm using Arch now and other than boot time I really don't think it's any faster than ubuntu.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    270
    Distro
    The Feisty Fawn Testing

    Re: Trying to make Ubuntu run like Arch

    Quote Originally Posted by newman View Post
    I installed arch, but it did not have the madwifi drivers and so it didn't detect my atheros wifi card. Also I coulndn't figure out how to install Xfce so I had no X.
    I'm running xubuntu again with some extra stuff removed, and it's not bad, but I really wanted to try Arch because everyone raves about how fast it is...
    You have to install xorg along with some kind of window manager. Gnome is just "gnome" and KDE is just "kde", so I would have thought "pacman -Sy xfce" would have worked. It might be "xfce4" or something like that though. You could check the package list on the Arch website to see for sure. Or you might even want to try the latest xfce build from Shadowhand's repo. There's info on that in the wiki if you just search for "shadowhand".


    Anyhow though, I've given up on speeding up Ubuntu beyond just using BUM and taking things out of my Gnome session startup list. I regular install was using 120 megs when I first installed it and now it's using 85 megs without me doing anything other than normal upgrades. It seems to vary like that alot, so I can't tell if things I try make it any better, so it is pointless to sit and remove things at this point. I just went and bought 512 MB of ram and now it seems about as fast as Arch was with 128 MB.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

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
  •