Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Antergos Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu, Fedora?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by vadix View Post
    Also, what caused it to not use deadline by default for the SSD?
    CFQ is already optimized for SSDs. Deadline does better only in synthetic benchmarks.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by stiiixy View Post
      Yes, but can the tweaks to Arch be applied to any other distro's, and will they perform similarly. Truly reproducible, or is Arch doing some 'magic faerie dust' things to their binaries before comilation that is opening up feature's for more tweaking?
      i just went through the archwiki page for tuning and i didn't find anything worthnoting, especially nothing that you didn't find on ANY OTHER common distro's info pages, even ubuntu.

      excep a few things: there are some tweaks that are not really explained what they do but are EXTREMLY dangerous. in my opinion this is absolutely stupid to provide such tips without warnings and even any reference for more informations.

      i got shocked when i saw they tell you to try different values for kernel.io_delay_type and nothing more. and there were other examples, not as bad as this one but overall their tuning wiki pages seemed more or less worthless to me.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by justanarcher View Post
        CFQ is already optimized for SSDs. Deadline does better only in synthetic benchmarks.
        from my experience deadline still does better for ssds in practice than CFQ. but yes, cfq become very good at it too.

        Comment


        • #34
          I've been using Arch for the past 8 years. The same installation for the past 5 (with changes to systemd, /lib and so on) and it's as good as it was at the beginning.
          As many said, this is yet another useless test. The beauty of Arch lies in the liberty it provides when it comes to setting up and configuring your systems. It was like that with init and it still is with systemd. You install what you want, you selects the services you want, you tweak the system the way you want it to be. The smoothness you get after that won't show up on a test like this. This has to do more with the package that is being used (cfq in case of the IO scheduler).

          Can you do this in other distros? Sure. Though it's much more difficult when the whole package is given to you and you have to dig up into the core, and most of the time either you won't have the same results, or you'll break something.

          ABS is another piece of gold. When I have to touch a Ubuntu distro now, and I have to look up for a software that's not in the official repositories, add it, the sign it, and you end up with 20 different repositories...that's a mess. You look up for the package in AUR and install it with yaourt. Done.

          Pacman is another beast. apt-get is just a toy compared.

          Is Arch for everyone? Maybe not and I don't recommend it to everybody, but reducing the comparison of the distros to this test...you can't expect much more from Phoronix.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by a user View Post
            i just went through the archwiki page for tuning and i didn't find anything worthnoting, especially nothing that you didn't find on ANY OTHER common distro's info pages, even ubuntu.
            Ubuntu/debian's pages, AFAICT aren't consolidated at all. In most cases, it would be quicker to google and hit XYZ random blog, rather than using their distro resources. [and often when you google that kind of thing - Archwiki appears before XYZ distro's docs do].

            Originally posted by a user View Post
            excep a few things: there are some tweaks that are not really explained what they do but are EXTREMLY dangerous. in my opinion this is absolutely stupid to provide such tips without warnings and even any reference for more informations.

            i got shocked when i saw they tell you to try different values for kernel.io_delay_type and nothing more. and there were other examples, not as bad as this one but overall their tuning wiki pages seemed more or less worthless to me.
            "not as bad as this one" pretty much says it all. sysctl isn't persistent across boots unless you specify that [in one of the links/man pages]. io_delay_type, depending on value, may be unstable on some systems, h/w [I've never experienced a problem. but i havent' touched that since fedora dayz/long time ago] - but again, NOT persistent settings. There is also a certain expectation within the Arch community; that users are competent and somewhat proactive [meaning your not afraid to look up/investigate something further, if needs be. ie: not a lot of hand-holding in Arch]. Regardless, you are 100% wrong, when you claim there are no warnings about this stuff;

            Originally posted by Archwiki sysctl
            Note: If you have the kernel documentation installed (linux-docs), you can find detailed information about sysctl settings in /usr/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build/Documentation/sysctl/. It is highly recommended reading these before changing sysctl settings.
            or did you just skip over that part...and what does every doc/txt/ file for sysctl say?
            Originally posted by sysctl documentation
            The files in this directory can be used to tune and monitor
            miscellaneous and general things in the operation of the Linux
            kernel. Since some of the files _can_ be used to screw up your
            system, it is advisable to read both documentation and source
            before actually making adjustments.
            hmmm.... So because you ignored what the wiki actually suggests and have never looked at the sysctl docs - it's now ArchWiki's fault? funny stuff.
            Last edited by ninez; 06-28-2014, 12:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              so... arch is the new gentoo ?

              Comment


              • #37
                Yeah, author got in the trap. Arch is faster because it is simple and easy, it lets solve your problems faster, and contains tons of working stuff in aur. Distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are too complicated and self-devoted: first they try to solve a problem by increasing utility complexity, then they add an utility to control utility, more and more. That 's a bullshit. Awesome is awesome because it lets you run programs, work with windows-and nothing else.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by wstorm View Post
                  Yeah, author got in the trap. Arch is faster because it is simple and easy, it lets solve your problems faster, and contains tons of working stuff in aur. Distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are too complicated and self-devoted: first they try to solve a problem by increasing utility complexity, then they add an utility to control utility, more and more. That 's a bullshit. Awesome is awesome because it lets you run programs, work with windows-and nothing else.
                  Arch with Awesome launchs at less than 48MB of RAM.
                  And compare:
                  apt-get install
                  vs
                  pacman -S
                  it is just faster out of the box by 4 letters - about 1 sec of speed gain, at least for me. =)
                  Pacman always works right, apt-get may turn your system into a mess.
                  No graphical installation is nice bydef - no overhead, just couple of setup cmds, and when something go wrong, you can fix it. I don't only like everything about ****ing systemd, but that was necessary adoption.
                  In general, arch leave you control over system, while ubuntu can't offer that. It is proprietary after all.

                  I used Gentoo before, but it is not optimal because in Gentoo you need to compile every package, as i know.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ninez View Post
                    Ubuntu/debian's pages, AFAICT aren't consolidated at all. In most cases, it would be quicker to google and hit XYZ random blog, rather than using their distro resources. [and often when you google that kind of thing - Archwiki appears before XYZ distro's docs do].
                    and still the tweak stuff found in arch wiki is worse than 99% of random sites found on google.


                    "not as bad as this one" pretty much says it all. sysctl isn't persistent across boots unless you specify that [in one of the links/man pages]. io_delay_type, depending on value, may be unstable on some systems, h/w [I've never experienced a problem.
                    you don't get it. please do a search for this. it is not about unstable, or that's not the real main risk with that setting.
                    the problem is that it defines the io method/port for transfaring io data to subdevices, e.g. when flashing/updating firmwares.
                    changing this can corrupt any firmware transfer.

                    this setting is nothing that should ever be mentioned in a tweaking guide.

                    but i havent' touched that since fedora dayz/long time ago] - but again, NOT persistent settings.
                    in this case it doesn't matter if persistant or not. having this changed can corrupt or even brick your graphics card on an driver update, or your video grabber etc.
                    There is also a certain expectation within the Arch community; that users are competent and somewhat proactive [meaning
                    judging by the comments in this thread posted by arch linux users they are not competent but think so.
                    but anyway, the claim of good arch linux tweak guides on their wiki is simply bullshit. it is the worst of its kind i ever saw on the internet.

                    even ubuntu has some better site regarding this matter as they at least do post useless stuff that is even dangerous. many people not so competent may switch to arch linux, stumble on this wiki and do bad things.
                    your not afraid to look up/investigate something further, if needs be. ie: not a lot of hand-holding in Arch]. Regardless, you are 100% wrong, when you claim there are no warnings about this stuff;
                    reading comprehension? were did i said that?
                    i only said regarding some things there no warnings and i gave the special bad example of io_delay_type. for this setting, the by far most dangerous one on their site (as far as i saw) there is NO WARNING!

                    or did you just skip over that part...and what does every doc/txt/ file for sysctl say?


                    hmmm.... So because you ignored what the wiki actually suggests and have never looked at the sysctl docs - it's now ArchWiki's fault? funny stuff.
                    no, it's your fault of failing reading comprehension.

                    a lot of the sysctl settings found in the arch wiki are found all over the place with better explenations and hints, even on ubuntu sites (which either dislike though). i am not saying that ubuntu has good docs or tips and tricks pages.

                    i'm just saying that archwiki isn't really better at all, especial by far not like some people here claim. in fact most of their wanna be tricks are worthless. it's the same pseudomagic tweaks guides i see over and over from wannabe competent linux users.

                    seems to be the current fashion, jumping to arch linux, feeling like a linux-pro and telling others magically tweak their system.
                    i'm quite sick of this.
                    Last edited by a user; 06-29-2014, 05:52 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by a user View Post
                      i just went through the archwiki page for tuning and i didn't find anything worthnoting, especially nothing that you didn't find on ANY OTHER common distro's info pages, even ubuntu.
                      Can you tell me what page have you came across?

                      Originally posted by a user View Post
                      there are some tweaks that are not really explained what they do but are EXTREMLY dangerous. in my opinion this is absolutely stupid to provide such tips without warnings and even any reference for more informations.
                      I've came across a lot of page in the wiki and most of them have warnings and info or told you to read some docs before trying

                      Originally posted by a user View Post
                      i got shocked when i saw they tell you to try different values for kernel.io_delay_type and nothing more. and there were other examples, not as bad as this one but overall their tuning wiki pages seemed more or less worthless to me.
                      That wiki page have already told you to read more docs before trying

                      Note: If you have the kernel documentation installed (linux-docs), you can find detailed information about sysctl settings in /usr/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build/Documentation/sysctl/. It is highly recommended reading these before changing sysctl settings.
                      The only wiki page I've found that have the most info and organized tweaks is this one

                      https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ng_Performance

                      Of course you can find all of this by googling and go to some random sites but the community have gathered tweaks from those sites and put them all in the wiki so you will have an organized page with all the info you need. If you don't like something or wanted to add something, just create an account and change what you thought is not good. This will help not only Arch users but other linux users as well.

                      p/s: Sorry for bad english

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by wstorm View Post
                        Arch with Awesome launchs at less than 48MB of RAM.
                        And compare:
                        apt-get install
                        vs
                        pacman -S
                        it is just faster out of the box by 4 letters - about 1 sec of speed gain, at least for me. =)
                        Pacman always works right, apt-get may turn your system into a mess.
                        No graphical installation is nice bydef - no overhead, just couple of setup cmds, and when something go wrong, you can fix it. I don't only like everything about ****ing systemd, but that was necessary adoption.
                        In general, arch leave you control over system, while ubuntu can't offer that. It is proprietary after all.

                        I used Gentoo before, but it is not optimal because in Gentoo you need to compile every package, as i know.
                        If you use a Gentoo derivative such as Sabayon they have a repo of already built packages

                        Debian has another tool called aptitude that has better dependency resolution but not everyone uses it

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Bah, _if_ arch is indeed faster, surely any speed gains are negated by the fact that package upgrades break the system so often... And before any fan boys get their knickers in a knot, here's a arch wiki article to prove my point:

                          https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...e_my_system.21

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Archlinux 64bit is just as any other 64bit distro :-) It doesn't have any performance advantage, it is i686 Archlinux that indeed was really "faster" because all programs were optimized for the i686 architecture; until a few years ago big distro shipped binaries compiled for i486 class CPUs. Now at least some libraries and the kernel are compiled for i686 on most distro and the speed difference narrowed ...

                            Archlinux 64bit has no particular reason for being faster than any other 64bit distro, since all use the same CPU instruction set.
                            Comparing i686 Arch with another i386 distro could show the real Archlinux speed advantage, probably in the 5-10% range anyway :-)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by teeedubb View Post
                              Bah, _if_ arch is indeed faster, surely any speed gains are negated by the fact that package upgrades break the system so often... And before any fan boys get their knickers in a knot, here's a arch wiki article to prove my point:

                              https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...e_my_system.21
                              I've testing repo enabled on my Arch installation, haven't got a single error when updating, and I only get an error on the /usr move which required user intervention but thanks to arch devs for putting an guide to update which is extremely simple to follow and that's helped my system to keep running stable

                              And the wiki link above doesn't prove anything, the devs have to made sure the wiki cover any situations that may occurs. So just because it's in there, the it doesn't mean Arch broke a lot. Except for update which required user intervention, not thing break at all (from my experiences)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I have had breakages with updates on Arch, but I have also had them on Fedora. One does need to be more ready for them on Arch, as it is more likely to expose them in certain regards, but if you keep good housekeeping, check the website often, and generally be smart about what you do then you should be able to get around them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X