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.
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
I've always heard that Slackware performs great because it's more simple and vanilla. I guess it's just a myth?
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.
wierd about slackware
stock scheduler frequency is 1000hz, same as others
and packages are compiled (for64bit) usualy with SLKCFLAGS="-O2 -fPIC" (or -O3, this is from the fluxbox slackbuild)
almost all vanilla, except for security patches and if something has a problem by default(example X11 has a "x11.startwithblackscreen.diff.gz" patch)
only thing blatently different is that KDE is the default, althou theres alot more WM's there
maybe some1 else knows why shud it be 10-20% slower ?
You could set these systems up identically. That's where the futility of these tests lay. However that being said Ubuntu's default did fair better than I would of given it credit for.
I haven't done a install of Arch since the swap, mostly because my Arch box's never need a re-install and the server heads use the LTS branch so until I get a new computer to mess with I won't get to try the new scripts, may VM it just for fun.
This should not be very distro specific. In the end having systemd just means having some exta files on your harddrive and adding init=/bin/systemd to your KERNEL line.
Originally Posted by ganloo
Desktop Environments Would Be Cool!
I know this seems useless but it proved that their really isn't much different in speed.
BUT I know my Son's Netbook can't play YouTube videos at above 320P UNLESS I use a Window Manager like Awesome!
Also the call of KDE bloat from Gnome people has always made me CRAZY since Gnome 2.X and 3.X always used more memory and cpu on my machines.
So can we have a test of:
In defense of
Normally I'd let this slide but you're testing different kernels here.
Cent0S is using 2.6.32: You're comparing it against Ubuntu 12.04 when you should be comparing it against Ubuntu 10.04.
At best, you should be comparing against Slackware 13.1 (2.6.34) and so on....
Linux 3.5 has made so many changes to the Ext4 file-system I wouldn't even know where to start talking about performance in relation to your test criteria.
Another thing about Slackware is that if you choose the default -- install everything -- then most likely you got the HUGE Kernel compiled i486.
You'd basically have to check /boot/vmlinuz to see where it's symlink'd to.
To recap: Cent0S 6.2 -> Ubuntu 10.04 [ 2.6.32 kernel ]
Cent0S 6.2 -> Slackware 13.1 [ never used the .32 stable ]