Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Mid-2012: Arch Linux vs. Slackware vs. Ubuntu vs. Fedora

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,647

    Default Mid-2012: Arch Linux vs. Slackware vs. Ubuntu vs. Fedora

    Phoronix: Mid-2012: Arch Linux vs. Slackware vs. Ubuntu vs. Fedora

    At the request of many Phoronix readers following the release of updated Arch Linux media, here are some new Arch Linux benchmarks. However, this is not just Arch vs. Ubuntu, but rather a larger Linux distribution performance comparison. In this article are benchmark results from Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, CentOS 6.2, Fedora 17, Slackware 14.0 Beta, and Arch Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17688

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Is there any point with these benchmarks? I feel that when you compare the speed of programs running on the latest versions from the most popular distributions, the results wont really be that much different from each other. And any differences can't really be explained anyway. Theyre all running on the same hardware with the same kernel and probably the same scheduler, compiled with the same compiler. Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that any differences in performance has more to do with scheduling and maybe the way the program is compiled than anything else

    Might as well just pick the distro you feel most comfortable with and stick to it, rather than base your choice on benchmarks

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I've always heard that Slackware performs great because it's more simple and vanilla. I guess it's just a myth?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    65

    Default

    That's exactly the point of the article. Long gone are the days, when Gentoo was measurably, significantly faster - and even back then, it was due to two things - an improved compiler, and slow hardware (mainly memory limits). Nowadays, especially if your WM/DE is the same, there is going to be almost no significant difference between distributions (unless you're comparing Debian Stable with Arch Linux Testing, which can be 15 months apart in some packages)...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9a3eedi View Post
    Is there any point with these benchmarks? I feel that when you compare the speed of programs running on the latest versions from the most popular distributions, the results wont really be that much different from each other. And any differences can't really be explained anyway. Theyre all running on the same hardware with the same kernel and probably the same scheduler, compiled with the same compiler. Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that any differences in performance has more to do with scheduling and maybe the way the program is compiled than anything else.
    What about compiler flags? Arch's default compiler flags provide more security than ubuntu IIRC. It is always interesting to check for differences. Otherwise, there may be some performance problems on some distro and noone knows.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    747

    Default

    Cool, I use the Linux-CK Kernel with Brainfuck Scheduler and Core i7 Optimizations it makes my Arch even quicker.
    Absolutely love the new InstallScripts aswell. No more getting out of the AIF just to get your system to work with GPT
    and dd'ing syslinux into the bootsector and such. Now it comes down to 1. Partitioning 2. Getting files on that Partion with an easy pacstrap command 3. Setup Bootloader 4. Chrooting without having to bind sysfs and proc and all that just with "arch-chroot" and make changes to config. Done.

    If you want to see that there is a difference in how fast the distro feels make 2 Virutal Machine with identical Specs. Install Ubuntu on on VM and Arch with Gnome on the other. Boot them both up and open a terminal. It's easy to see that the Arch terminal simply appears where on Ubuntu you can see it gradually build up over time. I've tested this with 11.10.
    Last edited by blackout23; 07-31-2012 at 06:43 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackout23 View Post
    Cool, I use the Linux-CK Kernel with Brainfuck Scheduler and Core i7 Optimizations it makes my Arch even quicker.
    Absolutely love the new InstallScripts aswell. No more getting out of the AIF just to get your system to work with GPT
    and dd'ing syslinux into the bootsector and such. Now it comes down to 1. Partitioning 2. Getting files on that Partion with an easy pacstrap command 3. Setup Bootloader 4. Chrooting without having to bind sysfs and proc and all that just with "arch-chroot" and make changes to config. Done.

    If you want to see that there is a difference in how fast the distro feels make 2 Virutal Machine with identical Specs. Install Ubuntu on on VM and Arch with Gnome on the other. Boot them both up and open a terminal. It's easy to see that the Arch terminal simply appears where on Ubuntu you can see it gradually build up over time. I've tested this with 11.10.
    Brainfuck doesn't improve every benchmark. A lot of times when you decrease latency, you also decrease throughput. It does however do quite a bit to make your system feel more responsive.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorBlux View Post
    Brainfuck doesn't improve every benchmark. A lot of times when you decrease latency, you also decrease throughput. It does however do quite a bit to make your system feel more responsive.
    And that's what matters the most for me. I would call it percieved performance. That's why SSDs give you that WOW feeling everything reacts instantly. Doesn't matter if you have an old 1.8 Ghz dualcore CPU which is easy beaten by every modern laptop in CPU heavy benchmarks aslong as your UI reacts faster it's still better than having a fast CPU with slow 5400rm HDD when all you do is basic "office work" anyway. Of course when your main task is to encode videos 24/7 you wouldn't care about having a slower feeling system which has more CPU oomph.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by igano View Post
    I've always heard that Slackware performs great because it's more simple and vanilla. I guess it's just a myth?
    I'm also surprised with Slackware coming out so bad. I wanted to say that Slackware's packages (and probably the kernel too) is compiled for i486. However I now see the benchmark was done on x86_64 (so hopefully Slackware64 was used)...
    Maybe there still are some differences in kernel settings, e.g. Slackware could have a server scheduling (less context switches per second and less preemption points) and something like Ubuntu could use the desktop settings. But in case of benchmarks the server settings could actually be an advantage.

    So I can't explain this and I find it sad as I am using it for years

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default Don't forget Arch is no big name behind, that's the different.

    Everytime I see Arch can easily switch from one technology to another (for example, adopt systemd for inintialization) , I am still amazed.

Posting Permissions

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