Phoronix: Is Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu?

Hello
I've just love that benchmarks.
Here's the link to the article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a … ster&num=6
What do you think about this?
(I don't want to start flamewar !)
Thanks.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=97422

Similar Messages

Is Arch really faster than Ubuntu ?

Hello Archers !
I think a lot of you answered this topic title already while reading it.
Phoronix (a bunch of serious guys doing linux benchmarking) did the test.
You may find it here.
It is not conclusive at all.
Sorry but : Arch isn't faster.
(but it's not slower at least !)

1. You're already late.
2.
Kooothor wrote:Sorry but : Arch isn't faster.
O RLY
PS. Don't feed the troll.
Last edited by hidefromkgb (2010-05-21 18:46:55)

Is the Gig version really faster than the 100m version !?

I just upgraded my 100 meg AEBS to the new Gig version, and ran a quick n easy benchmark, an rsync -e ssh on a 150 meg file. The server is an iMac connected via gig-e, and the Macbook c2d is connected via 802.11n (reporting a consistant 300 mbps in network utility - about 20 feet from the router, going through 2-4 sheets of drywall). The tests were conducted in my Chicago apartment, with at least 10 detectable 2.4gHz networks, and no 5.8gHz networks that I know of.
The 802.11n 5.8gHz no backwards compatibility was by far the fastest. The fastest test I ran was 11 MBps on the copy, with 802.11a compatibility I believe was around 8, and 2.4ghz + 802.11g compatibility was around 6. I repeated all tests a few times, the results were pretty consistant.
These results suprised me, as I was really hoping for a bit faster. I could get 40 MBps on my Linux file server over gig-e to the iMac in previous tests. Unfortunately that machine is down until I get some replacement parts, so I couldn't use it to test the new AEBS. But I seem to remember getting 11 or 12 MBps with the Linux file server over the old AEBS with 100m and 5.8gHz no backwards compatiblity.
So how much of the performance non-difference is due to the iMac vs Linux file server, or the Gig-E version being no faster than the 100 meg version remains to be seen. I'm curious if anyone else has done tests.
If the router, or this 802.11n implementation is the bottleneck - folks may not want to waste their money upgrading, unless they really want that 4 port (in bridge mode) gig-e switch on the back.
Rob

That is somewhat counterintuitive, as the 802.11n connection speed is reportedly 300 mbps. I understand the implications of protocol overhead, but 70% overhead seems a bit excessive. I guess I'm curious if the bottleneck is:
- in the router backplane
- in the 802.11n protocol
- in apples implementation of 802.11(draft)n
Also - anyone else have actual benchmark data to share?
regards
Rob

MBP 13" not really faster than MB 13"

Hi
I want to upgrade my 4 year old MB 13". I really like the size... I waited a long time for the new processors to come. Now I discovered that the 13" model does not feature the i5 and i7 processors and I heard that the 13" MBP cannot be compared to the 15" model in terms of performance.
I will do more photo editing (photoshop) and video editing (final cut express) and my old MB is getting really slow...
Any advice on choice of Macbook - Pro or normal...
Thanks!

Hi niefl,
First of all (and I know this isn't quite what your are asking) although the new MBP isn't as fast as the new 15" model, it is a LOT quicker than a four year old MB. We have an early 2 GHz black CD MacBook (about the same generation as yours), a later , Core 2 Duo, MB, a SantaRosa 15" MBP from 2007, and a June 2009 13" MBP . Even the June 2009 13" model is much, much faster in any situation that requires processor power for things like photo editing or video editing than the early 2 GHz MB .
As far as comparison with the late 2009 polycarbonate MB goes, the benchmarks published by MacWorld (see http://www.macworld.com/article/147071/2010/04/13inchmacbookprobenchmarks.html) indicate that the new MBP 13 is a bit faster than the MB but not by a huge margin - maybe about 10% on most tasks.
But there are other very good reason to get the MBP if you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars. For video work the huge difference is firewire. USB is better on recent Macs than it was in the days when your old MB was released, but it is still slower than FW400 and much, much slower than the Firewire 800 available on the MBP but not the MB.
Secondly the "standard" base configuration of the MBP comes with 4 gig of RAM, while the MB comes with just 2Gig. To do what you want to do efficiently you will need at least 4 gig of RAM. You will really notice the benefit of this with both photo editing and video work. Simply upgrading the RAM on the MB to 4 gig will cost you around half the difference in price between the two machines anyway!
Thirdly, the MBP comes with an illuminated keyboard. I never realised how useful this would be until I obtained my first MBP. Once you have been using one for a while it is hard to go back to the non-iluminated one.
Fourthly the MBP is a little lighter and slimmer than the MB.
Fifthly, our own experience has been that the aluminium MBPs are substantially tougher than the polycarbonate ones. Not only are they much more scratch resistant, but they are also less prone to case fractures through minor knocks.
Sixth, they have batteries / power management systems that give you longer battery charge life.
Seventh, they provide full sound output through the minidisplay port if you wish to hook up to an HDMI TV (unlike the MB)
Finally, they look better!
If you assume that you will have to upgrade the MB to 4 Gig of RAM anyway, then you get all the rest for just $100!
Pretty hard to beat when it comes to value IMHO!
Having said all of that, there is no doubt that the base model i5 MBP 15" is a very sweet computer, and ideal for the purposes you speak of, but if your budget, or demands for portability, means that you are choosing between the 13" MBP and the MB, I think the current model of the MBP13 wins hands down when it comes to overall value, and is a bit faster too.
Cheers
Rod

Java+Linux is faster than C#+windows?

Is this always true even Java is running under JVM? May someone explains why even under JVM is faster?

always? no.
sometimes? sure.
Depending on the application, the runtime environment, the hardware, other resources in use, etc. etc. etc.

General questions concerning gaming in (arch)linux

Hi,
I've searched the forums, and I found a lot of howto's that sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't. I'm not a gamer, but have been a longtime linux-user.
I have talked a lot of people into using linux, and almost all of them are happy with there new OS, but my brother (my latest convert) is a gamer 'pure sang'. He's not to happy with the switch to Ubuntu:
* Enemy Territory works, but punkbuster keeps kicking him off the servers
* WoW: he was used to getting rocksolid 80+ FPS in windows, now he gets 50FPS with drops to below 20FPS
* Mumble: giving problems
Yesterday I have found a link to a solution for punkbuster - maybe I can solve that one myself. Is it normal that you have a significant amount lower FPS in linux than in windows? I thought the nvidia-blob was about 'on par' with the windows-driver? I have set WoW to OpenGL and applied several tweaks that I have found around the interwebs...
Should I give archlinux for him a try (I only chose Ubuntu to make it easier for him to update)? Since punkbuster is 32bit-only, should I install 32bit linux for him? Or should I advise him to buy a 'windows 7'-licence key?
PS: Is the Archlinux gaming repo still alive? It looks as if no updates have made since early 2010 and only 1 of the 3 mirrors mentioned in the wiki is still up...
THX!

I am a pretty much a gamer, less so in recent years but... I have found that Linux does not offer the same gaming possibilities as Windows. To this day, I am still dual-booting because of gaming, and I doubt that will change in the near future. I have ran things like Half-life2 and Stracraft 2 in Linux with statisfying results, but with generally fewer frame rates than Windows. As for gaming performance, recent test ran by Phoronix suggest that BSD is faster than Linux, but that's not your question. For myself, I doubt you would find a distro with a significant performance boost for gaming, as they all share the same drivers and all share Xorg to produce graphics. The only reserve is that other test ran by Phoronix suggest that "compositing" as used in Ubuntu's Unity or Gnome 3 has some negative effect on 3D gaming performance, so if you switch to Arch, you might want to consider the "less cute" desktops, like XFCE or LXDE and the like, without compositing. Also, I should mention that using 64 bit Linux to run 32 bit windows games tends to make things a little more difficult. If gaming under Linux with Wine is a must, consider staying under a 32 bit version of the distro of your choice.
As for Windows games, you might want to look at Crossover ( http://www.codeweavers.com/ ) which offers an interface to Wine and better support. There is a "gaming edition" of crossover which might help. Check their DB to see which games are supported, but there's a full-featured demo mode anyway, so try before you buy. Also, you might try playonlinux ( http://www.playonlinux.com/ ) wich offers an interfaces that manages Wine installations for you with "recepies" in the background that are known to offer the best results. If you want the "free" option, playonlinux is the way to go if you want the best chances at running your games, if supported.
Lastly, I would suggest looking at http://www.penguspy.com/ to find Linux native games. Of course, that might not satisfy your brother if he wants specific games.
Last edited by jpsimard (2011-09-27 14:50:16)

A simple file server with Arch Linux?

Hello everyone.
I had a lucky day to day and was given an old Pentium III based server with 512MB of RAM. I want to set up a server for my house that can basically act as NAS (network attached storage) and stream files to other members of the family's machines. I also want to install rTorrent and be able to download multimedia on to the server. I also wish to be able to access the server from a Windows machine as I would prefer if the server could be headless (no monitor or keyboard/mouse) after the initial installation of ArchLinux.
Could someone explain how I might go about performing these tasks? I have never used Linux before (other than Ubuntu for web browsing). I am of course comfortable with installing the OS but not sure about how I would set it up like I want.
Thanks for reading and I look forward to reading your response.

You can use samba to share the files between the computers (this will work with Windows as well as Linux and Mac OS X).
As for rTorrent, you can install rTorrent and run it via ssh. However I would recommend deluge. There is a server daemon which you would run on the server. And then a client which you can run on a linux machine (there might even a be a windows version).
To use a headless server you need (well you don't need, but it is very helpful) to setup ssh. I am not sure what you mean by stream files to other members of the family's machines (share files)?
Also if you are not all that familiar with linux, be prepared to do some serious reading or maybe look at using something like ubuntu (but you will still have to read). Using arch would be a great way to learn linux more than what you have with ubuntu.

Just some few Arch Linux questions

Hi, I am new to Arch Linux and am looking for some advice and answers.
Here are the questions:
1. Does the update command (I think its called pacman and it updates many things with one command in terminal) update the Arch Linux base, the DE that is installed, the apps that are installed and artwork on Arch Linux?
2. Is Arch Linux User friendly once installed (When I say user friendly, I mean something like Ubuntu)?
3. Does the drivers (Wireless card drivers, graphics card drivers, printer drivers and audio card drivers) come pre-installed once Arch Linux is installed like Ubuntu?
4. What is the stablility and speed of Arch Linux compared to Ubuntu?
That is all I need to know.
Cheers,
molom

molom wrote:Hi, I am new to Arch Linux and am looking for some advice and answers.
Here are the questions:
1. Does the update command (I think its called pacman and it updates many things with one command in terminal) update the Arch Linux base, the DE that is installed, the apps that are installed and artwork on Arch Linux?
pacman is the package manager for Arch. It will install single package, batches of packages, update the installed packages and several other things. Yes, one command 'pacman -Syu will update all the installed packages to the most recent available in the repositories. It will not update your artwork, ut everything else will be updated if you so desire.
molom wrote:2. Is Arch Linux User friendly once installed (When I say user friendly, I mean something like Ubuntu)?
Once you have installed the base systen, updated and then installed whatever desktop environment or window manager you want, whatever programs you want, etc., it will be as user friendly as you have made it.
molom wrote:3. Does the drivers (Wireless card drivers, graphics card drivers, printer drivers and audio card drivers) come pre-installed once Arch Linux is installed like Ubuntu?
As others have said, the install process does a fairly good job of detecting your hardware and installing the necessary modules, but it is up to you to install drivers for your nVidia / ATI video card if you want accelerated graphics. You'll have to install your printer (generally via cups, which you must also install). You'll have to install alsa and you may have to configure your sound.
molom wrote:4. What is the stablility and speed of Arch Linux compared to Ubuntu?
Arch is what you make it. You can have a rock solid stable system, or you can opt to be bleeding edge and risk the occasional package breaking.
molom wrote:So when you say 'pkgs', do you also mean the desktop environment as well. For example, I have E17 installed and I use the 'pacman -Syu' command, will it update the version of E17 on my PC to the current version of E17?
A package is a piece of software. E17 is a package, or perhaps a meta package made up of a bunch of packages. alsa is a package. gnome network-manager is a package. Anything that is installed on your system is managed and updated by pacman.
molom wrote:Is there something similar to synaptic in Arch Linux?
pacman is the Arch package manager. It does not need a gui front end, though there are a few third party front ends that have been written. I do not know if they are still active.
molom wrote:
I'm really eager into knowing about Arch Linux.
Cheers,
molom
Then I also suggest as other have, that you avail yourself of the wiki, especially the beginner's guide which answers several of the questions you've asked.
Arch Linux is what you make of it, but you have to do the making. Heck, that's 95% of the fun!

Does anyone know if 256SSD is faster than 128SSD?

I have a MacBook Pro Retina, 13-inch, Late 2012 SSD 128 GB .
I want to know if 256GB SSD is really faster than 128SSD. My 128SSD rated at 307,4mb/s read and 446mb/s write.

Ever Orlando wrote:
Someone knows 256SSD disk speed tests?
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/ssd.html

Is jdk1.4/jre1.4 really fast ????

Hi
I have the following questions regarding jdk1.4
a. Is it really faster than the earlier versions or just better.
b. if i run an old java application written for jdk1.1, on jdk1.4
will the improvement in execution speed be noticeable? (if i do
only the changes required to make it compile on jdk1.4)
c. Is jdk1.4 stable ...
Thanks
Harsha

a. Is it really faster than the earlier versions
ns or just better.It is both faster and better.
>
b. if i run an old java application written for
or jdk1.1, on jdk1.4
will the improvement in execution speed be
eed be noticeable? (if i do
only the changes required to make it compile on
ile on jdk1.4)No changes will be required, you do not have to re-compile. Just run the existing class files on a 1.4 runtime and they will be faster.
>
c. Is jdk1.4 stable ...Yes.

Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

Hello. I'm just trying out Virtualbox in a Windows host with Ubuntu, XP and Arch, and the outright loser in terms of performance is Arch. This is the absolute opposite to normal installation of these OS's on any machine I ever used. Arch normally piddles all over Ubuntu and XP in terms of speed. Instead, programs take ages to load, even stuff like terminal emulators, firefox and opera work rubbish (especially when trying to play flash video), and boot time is noticeably slower (despite my terrifying attempts at hacking the files described in the How to Boot Arch faster Wiki, thank goodness for the snapshot facility).
The host has 1Gb RAM, 128MB graphics memory, and I allocated 256Gb RAM and 24Mb graphics memory to each virtual machine. The other two guests run very well. For normal internet use there is very little performance drop. In Arch I am running xfce4 as a DE/WM and using firefox/opera as web browsers. I installed guest additions, added my daemons...it should work good, dammit!!!
I saw somewhere that Arch just flat out doesn't really like being in a virtual environment, is this correct? Regardless of the answer, does anyone have any useful tips and tricks that might speed things up a bit? It's like Virtual Ubuntu is pointing and laughing at the poor thing...

Wra!th wrote:Latest Ubuntu is ftw. No doubt about it. I mean it's like 3 times faster (atleast boot-wise) than Arch, and starts like 3 times more daemons than a configured Arch.
In-desktop it's not at all slow. Works better with effects out of the box on my laptop than arch with any type of compositing.and it took absolutetly no configuration. it was all ootb...
Any hard statistics comparing Ubuntu 9.04 and Arch? It would be nice to get some numbers...
Edit: O.K. I see you put some numbers up above. 40-50 seconds for Arch? I've never had an Arch boot take that long. How many daemons are you running?
Last edited by madalu (2009-06-11 19:31:05)

Ubuntu is booting up faster than Arch on my computer why would that be

So after about a year with ubuntu and just trying out different distros i went towards a challenge, Arch. Well it was for me at the time but after installing arch and learning how it all got built i am very content with this new distro for me. My primary objective was to have a really fast distro, thus Arch but since i am a noob for now I dont know all of the ins and outs of it yet. Right now Ubuntu boots up WAY faster than Arch does on my desktop and I would like to know why and how i can change that.

Arch doesn't do anything to increase boot time other than the ability to background some daemons on startup. There are initscript replacements like quick-init or finit-arc but in my experience they are a little flaky.
Ubuntu, IIRC, uses upstart which does some things (I don't know) to help increase boot time. You can try installing upstart on Arch if you want http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24506

Arch linux for Ubuntu users

Hello everyone,
When using Synaptic on Ubuntu it usually sets everything up for you so all the installed software tends to work out of the box without any need to change around configuration. Is the package manager in Arch Linux as integrated as the one from Ubuntu?
Thanks
Frank

I'm new to the linux scene (about 1 month now). My most used distro (and my fallback if I mess up another distro on a seperate partition) was Ubuntu, until I figured out the basics of Arch. After this enlightenment, I find Arch to be much easier to work with in terms of customizing apps, having the right libraries I want, and to just do daily functions. I love to always check for updates to the system. Ever notice in ubuntu there are about 30 repositories you have to sync with? In Arch there are the 3 basic repositories (extra, core, community) and multilib if you are on 64bit. Working with pacman is much more efficient and controlled than apt-get imho.
One thing I hated with apt-get is that you add in 3rd party PPAs that are slow. With Arch and its pacman + yaourt(aur) there is really no need for these 3rd party repositories as everything you can imagine is probably available in official repositories or built by the community. Go check out https://aur.archlinux.org/ this is one of the coolest community made pool of apps around.
As mentioned before, the pacman doesn't hold your hands so be prepared to google and learn what some packages do. For example, I am running gnome and install a KDE app called amarok. Pacman will install everything (including KDE and qt libs) to get amarok started. However, the only things it doesn't install (but it does tell you what) is extra depencies.
Optional dependencies for amarok
libgpod: support for Apple iPod audio devices
libmtp: support for portable media devices
loudmouth: backend needed by mp3tunes for syncing
ifuse: support for Apple iPod Touch and iPhone
So, basically I just read through pacman's output, and either google or make a decision on what is needed. This way my system is controlled tightly and I know more about the system. In the future if I buy an ipod and want to sync, I'll remember there are some optional depencies available for this. I can type "pacman -Qi amarok" and it will show me what it depends on as well as optional depencies.
Sorry for going on for so long but you get the point.

Pacman slow in Arch, but fast in Ubuntu

Hello
I searched among Pacman related topics on this forum, but I didn't find anything related to problem I have. It takes Pacman very long time to download many small files. Bandwidth isn't the case, but the time it takes Pacman to start downloading next package. My average ping to http://mir.archlinux.fr is about 70ms. When Pacman completes downloading packageN there's a few second lag till it will start downloading packageN+1. There's no such lag when I run Arch Linux in Ubuntu under KVM and using the same mirror.
PS. I have ipv6 disabled.
Last edited by Pawlerson (2010-10-09 13:41:19)

Allan wrote:Have you set up /etc/hosts properly?
Yes, browsing the web is very fast. My hosts file:
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost desktop

Arch linux on ubuntu?

I was always wondering, why is there an arch linux sub-forum on the ubuntu forum?

molom wrote:We should have an Ubuntu sub-forum on the Arch Linux forums
Hey that's not a bad idea, we can do that and then organize bets like 'how long will it take before someone posts something there' , etc...
A fraction of the money involved goes to Arch of course

Phoronix: Is Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for