The Performance Of Arch Linux Powered CachyOS

[jrch2k8]

I realize that arch linux did not install properly on the testing system, which is unfortunate. But if/when it does, what I would really be curious about is the benefit of using the ALHP repositories (same packages as Arch recompiled for x86_64-v3, with -O3 and LTO).

https://git.harting.dev/ALHP/ALHP.GO

i haven't done benchmarks but i use that repo since long ago, is quite stable imo

[ptr1337]

Thanks for the great benchmarks Michael!
I am one of the admins of this distribution and it helps us much to improve it.

One thing which needs to be noted, that we don't use the cacULE Scheduler as default anymore. The website is a bit outdated and we are working on a new one, which will be soon done.

I found the culprit of the PHP Benchmarks. We are using a auto nice daemon, which can also limit the CPU from Heavy Load applications. PHP was limited to 90% of the cpu by ananicy-cpp, I have fixed the regression with the following commit:

https://github.com/CachyOS/ananicy-rules/commit/9e0d00ef1ad5866b1b597b1e0af7e1ce3ee985ee

Looking really forward!

[CochainComplex]

Very interesting distro I will have a look at it. Performance wise I love clear but as a desktop distro I began to loose interest. It lost to much focus on desktop related packages. And third party repo is strangely embedded.

[EvilHowl]

I realize that arch linux did not install properly on the testing system, which is unfortunate. But if/when it does, what I would really be curious about is the benefit of using the ALHP repositories (same packages as Arch recompiled for x86_64-v3, with -O3 and LTO).

https://git.harting.dev/ALHP/ALHP.GO

Yeah, that would be interesting to see. It should make a big difference, given that Arch Linux does not even require x86-64-v2, which would demand 2008-era CPUs. It makes me wonder how much does that hold back the performance of our fancy new CPUs with their fancy new instructions.

[ptr1337]

Yeah, that would be interesting to see. It should make a big difference, given that Arch Linux does not even require x86-64-v2, which would demand 2008-era CPUs. It makes me wonder how much does that hold back the performance of our fancy new CPUs with their fancy new instructions.

We (CachyOS) compile the arch packages also against x86-64-v3 and LTO (LTO is default now at arch).
x86-64-v4 is planned for the future. Actually as soon ZEN 4 will be more used, it is planned to add. Probably in the first quarter next year.

[Etherman]

We (CachyOS) compile the arch packages also against x86-64-v3 and LTO (LTO is default now at arch).
x86-64-v4 is planned for the future. Actually as soon ZEN 4 will be more used, it is planned to add. Probably in the first quarter next year.

Why don't you use ALHP repos?

[guspitts]

We (CachyOS) compile the arch packages also against x86-64-v3 and LTO (LTO is default now at arch).
x86-64-v4 is planned for the future. Actually as soon ZEN 4 will be more used, it is planned to add. Probably in the first quarter next year.

So how close is CachyOS to upstream Arch? Is CachyOS like EndeavorOS, basically Arch packages (but recompiled) with a few extra packages for branding? Or closer to Manjaro, with a bit more distance to upstream?

(Thank you for taking the time to talk about your project on Phoronix).

[ptr1337]

Why don't you use ALHP repos?

Because it is easier to handle the repos on our own and bring bug fixes and other packages from our site.
Additionally we provide some base packages with custom/upstream patches.
Also the project was done before ALHP was there, so we already did our own thing before.
So, we have a better control of the packages we provide and we are not depending on other third party repos.

[ptr1337]

So how close is CachyOS to upstream Arch? Is CachyOS like EndeavorOS, basically Arch packages (but recompiled) with a few extra packages for branding? Or closer to Manjaro, with a bit more distance to upstream?

(Thank you for taking the time to talk about your project on Phoronix).

CachyOS is equal upstream as arch is. We are recompiling the packages and these will be synced every 6-12 Hrs, a bigger delay of packages we wont have.
We also have a lot of custom kernels pre compiled into the repo in x86-64 (for generic support) x86-64-v3 GCC and x86-64-v3 Clang THINLTO.
The Kernel is maintained from sir_lucjan and me.
Here a link to the custom kernels:

https://github.com/CachyOS/linux-cachyos

https://github.com/CachyOS/kernel-patches

As mentioned above, some core and base packages are adjusted to our needs or to improve the performance.
There are also a handful of aur packages in the repo which get precompiled from us.

If known issues are there from upstream packages, we try to hold them back or trying to fix these issue on our own.

Feel free to ask more, also you can join us on Discord, Telegram or Matrix.

Regards

[timofonic]

So how close is CachyOS to upstream Arch? Is CachyOS like EndeavorOS, basically Arch packages (but recompiled) with a few extra packages for branding? Or closer to Manjaro, with a bit more distance to upstream?

(Thank you for taking the time to talk about your project on Phoronix).

I want to know it too!