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)

Similar Messages

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

I installed the ios 5.0.1 and now suddenly close apps and battery dies faster than the ios5!

I installed the ios 5.0.1 and now suddenly close apps and battery dies faster than the ios5!
we need the 5.0.2 or 5.1 ios quickly!
thks

A few people that post here have said they are having trouble with there battery life. As for the apps crashing, have you reset you iPad , it may help.

Error With Ubuntu and windows 8 dual boot

I have a levovo x240 and I had Ubuntu and windows 8 dual booted I removed the Ubuntu partition in windows partition modifier and when I restarted my computer it launch "grub rescue> "
How do I boot into windows and stop this problem

Yes, instead of posting in a forum dedicated to type, post in a forum associated with Premiere.
I will move your post for you.
- Dov

Dual Boot Ubuntu and Windows 8.1 on HP ENVY dv7

Okay, I've installed 14.04 LTS with EFI and Secure Boot enabled. My problem is that the HP automated boot process ignores the presence of Ubuntu and boots directly into Windows. The only way I can boot into Ubuntu is to intercept the boot process by pressing the Escape key immediately, selecting Boot Device options (F9). choosing "Boot from EFI File", then pressing Enter on the next page (a description of the hard drive), choose EFI from the next screen, select "<ubuntu>" from the subsequent list, the select "shimx64.efi" from the next screen, which gives me the Grub list (without, I might add, any reference to Windows!) So, while it works, it is a laborious process at best. Have tried to follow the following post from an HP help forum:
So, until HP releases an updated UEFI that allows turning this "feature" off or rearranging boot options through the F10 UEFI setup, this is what you can do to get dual boot with the least amount of hackiness:
In Windows, mount the UEFI partition (mountvol S: /S mounts it as the S: drive) and copy the file \EFI\Microsoft\Boot\bootmgfw.efi to use some other name (for example, I copied it to "\EFI\Microsoft\Boot\bootmgfw.efi~", but you can change the name to anything else).
In the Windows command prompt, update the Windows UEFI entry to point to the new name: bcdedit /set {bootmgr} path \EFI\Microsoft\Boot\bootmgfw.efi~ (adapt to your set name accordingly).
Optionally, change the name of the Windows boot loader so that you would be certain that it points to the new file location: bcdedit /set {bootmgr} description "Fixed Windows path"
Install the other OS. In my case the bootloader was installed into \EFI\opensuse\grubx64.efi.
Delete the two files, \EFI\Microsoft\Boot\bootmgfw.efi and \EFI\Boot\bootx64.efi.
Use efibootmgr to delete the "OS boot Manager" entry: sudo efibootmgr -b 0000 -B
Set the new OS bootloader to be the default bootloader by using efibootmgr with the -o option. In my case, I had an entry called "opensuse" in slot Boot0001 and the updated path Windows entry in slot Boot0002, so I had to do sudo efibootmgr -o 0001,0002
Update GRUB to point the Windows entry to your renamed file (you'll have to create a new file in /etc/grub.d and rerun grub-mkconfig).
Was able to do everything as posted except "Delete OS boot Manager", because there is no entry for that item when I run efibootmgr in Ubuntu terminal. I did reorder the boot order using efibootmgr so that Ubuntu was first and Windows was second, but the HP OS boot Manager changes it back!
Would really appreciate any help. Thanks in advance.
SamJ20109

Hey vikas_g,
Welcome to the HP Forums!
With Ubuntu not recognizing your partitions during installation, some information that may be of assistance to you, could be in this document 'Frequently Asked Questions About Linux (FAQs)'.
If your question is not answered from this document, I would suggest asking your question on the Ubuntu Forums.
I hope this information helps!
I worked on behalf of HP

How to dual boot ubuntu and windows 8?

Hp envy 6 sleekbook 6z 1100
I have already disable the secure boot in the BIOS
But I still cannot install the ubuntu 13.04
The installation was good and smooth
But after reboot, there is no boot menu appear for me to choose which OS I want to boot
I wonder if HP locked something......... or should I turn on Legacy support in the BIOS? But ubuntu 13.04 should support EFL BIOS
I need Ubuntu for work!
This question was solved.
View Solution.

Thanks, I can boot into the Ubuntu now
Step:
1. After install Ubuntu along Windows 8, it will not boot into the Ubuntu
2, download EasyBCD --> backup your BCD setting first --> Add New Entry --> Linux --> GRUB2 --> Add
3. Once you reboot, the system allow you to choose either wind 8 or linux
4. choose linux , here is the trick part, Hp has something trick on their EFI bootloader, you should not able to boot to ubuntu
5. But when you press Esc, then F9, then you will see Ubuntu option
.............................. =.=
So
Just press Esc when you boot your laptop then F9 and shall be able to boot into Ubuntu.........

Pre-configured dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows

Of possible interest to the Linux folks: A newly opened Laptops with purpose store is now offering several popular ThinkPad models fully pre-configured with dual-boot Ubuntu Linux and Windows.
These systems come with a lot of pre-installed applications, see Dual boot Linux and Windows page for details.
At the moment, we are working on specific solutions for students, educators, scientists, designers...
Would love to have some feedback from the community on the existing offerings as well as suggestions/wishes for the future ones.

That would be fine if some hp machines didn't have broken UEFI that don't respect setting the default OS.

DSL on Windows is FASTER than DSL on iMAC ( Same DSL Connection )

Hi
I was wondering when I plug DSL to my Window PC and Run a DSL Test I get faster speed than when I plug DSL to my IMAC ?? I am using 512/4.096 up/down DSL service
Test for Window : 3586 kbps
Test for MAC : 3400 kbps
Also on window 91 Ping rate VS 153 Ping rate for iMac
keep in mind that I just switched the cable and plug into Window and MAC.
How can this be solve ? Why is the Imac slower than the Window machines?
Is there any setting that needs to be modify ? if so, please give me a walk-through.
Thank alot
tk3435

For what it's worth, I'd love to have either of those DSL speeds.....
Perhaps in Thailand the lines are much more stable than in the US but here, I easily get 10% "wobble" between consecutive speed tests, so your numbers don't strike me as really different. Do your tests reflect the average of multiple runs?
A.

Webpage does not load properly in firefox on ubunut, but in all other browsers (both ubuntu and windows[including firefox windows]) the page seems to be fine.

Hello, i am newbie, and i am developing my website.
My web-site's pages appears to be fine when i open in any browser (including IE, Firefox, Chrome) in windows..
but when i open the same website page in Ubuntu-Firefox the page has lots of css and font errors..is this a problem in ubuntu or my website?
my website link: http://www.beakkon.com
any suggestion on how to fix it?
i am also attaching the snippet of a page of my website when it is opened in Ubuntu-firefox.
Thanks in advance!!

There are some CSS errors in the Tools > Error Console about font instead of font-family.
Font-weight is also wrong here:
<pre><code>.heading_orange {
font:Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-weight:500px;
font-size:24px;
color:#db4d3d;
text-align:justify;
</code></pre>

How to Dual boot Ubuntu and Windows 8 on X1 Carbon G2?

I currently have a Windows 8.1 64 bit installation on my carbon x1 and need to install ubuntu.
I was able to boot from the USB and install Ubuntu.
However, I have to change to Legacy Only in the BIOS settings if I want to go into ubuntu. If I try to select the Windows 8 in the GRUB startup, it gives me a ERROR with a black screen.
I tried to do select the BOTH option with Legacy first, but it goes directly into Windows 8 and doesn't let me select the operating system.

That would be fine if some hp machines didn't have broken UEFI that don't respect setting the default OS.

Copy and paste not working with Arch as guest on virtualbox

In my ~/.xinitrc file I have the following:
exec awesome
/usr/bin/VBoxClient-all
VBoxClient-all &
I have checked the /usr/bin directory and there is no VBoxClient-all file.
I have installed the virtualbox-guest-utils aswell as adding the following to /etc/modules-load.d/virtualbox.conf:
vboxguest
vboxsf
vboxvideo
Thanks.
Last edited by psycho_tea_drinker (2013-07-22 12:24:34)

jasonwryan wrote:https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xi … ng_started
Thank you! The problem was exec *something* should be on the last line.

Windows simulation fast enough on mbp?

hello,
i use an old g4 pb, and a windows-laptop.
now i want to get one laptop - running both: mainly mac, sometimes vista.
is the windows (bootcamp, Parallels) with f.e. adobe cs2 fast enough for working? or is it too slow?
i know, this is a difficult question, depends on the subjective feeling of each user. but i like to hear some feedback of users, that usw windows, too, on a mbp.
thanks
claus
<edited by host>

with bootcamp the mbp would run at the same speed as any comparable intel system
with vmware fusion i find the mbp booots windows 2000 faster than a dell booots windows xp, but i rarely need windows so haven't used it much beyond installing office and testing it worked ok, certainly didn't find any issues with speed
running linux under vmware fusion for a cisco network and video management application, there's absolutely no problems with performance even when the mbp is also streaming video under osx and running other apps, i tried running windows at the same time and it was still fine
the only thing i do that maxes out the mbp is encoding video in premiere pro (cs3 under osx) the fans run non-stop and it gets pretty warm

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

Is time capsule faster than airport express

trying to decide if i should use TC as base station or if the existing airport express is just as good. that way i can put TC in more remote (protected) location

The TC is faster.. gigabit ethernet where the express is 100mbit.
Also the wireless on the TC AC model is much faster.. although a Gen4 would probably only be slightly better than Express gen2.
However the slow ethernet port on the Express means it can never be used.
So overall the Gen4 (and Gen3) are faster than Gen2 Express..
Whether that all matters comes down to your network speed.. for instance if your max internet speed is 50/5 then express is perfectly capable of handling it.. If the internet is any download speed over 100mbit.. then the express is not capable of handling it.

NVidia GTX 780 Ti faster than GTX Titan

Today the GTX 780 Ti GPU is available starting at $699 and it is faster than the $1000 GTX Titan. We do not have any test results but all specifications point to it being faster. It has faster memory and more CUDA cores. The only difference is that the GTX Titan has 6 GB of video RAM while the GTX 780 Ti has 3 GB. Unless the media you are editing is higher than 4K, 3 GB of video RAM should be enough (see Harms data).
Will someone please move this to the hardware forum, I must have been dozing off Bill

The 3770k will be a great match for a single 780ti.
Maybe on an absolute scale. But in my previous post in this thread I compared to the PPBM6 results Harm's Monster achieved. (And granted, Harm's Monster was equipped with a GTX 680 when he tested it.) Thus, if my i7-3770K was 2.5x slower than Harm's Monster in the H.264 Blu-ray portion of the PPBM6 test suite (259 seconds versus 115 seconds), then the MPEG-2 DVD result should also be about 2.5x slower than Harm's Monster (in other words, a result of about 52 seconds compared to the 23-second result of Harm's Monster). However, since Harm's Monster used a GTX 680 to achieve those results at the time he tested it, it follows that the recommended GPU for my system to achieve that particular balance would have been a plain, non-Boost GTX 650 Ti.
That said, I tested a 2GB GTX 660 from eVGA (a GTX 660 SC) in both my auxiliary i5-2400 system and my main i7-3770K system, and while I do agree that the GTX 660 was a bit overkill with an i5 with only 16GB of RAM {its MPEG-2 DVD result of 40 seconds was 2 seconds slower than the same card did in my main rig although I cannot confirm whether the slower result was CPU-limited or RAM-limited (UPDATE: I investigated further, and the 2-second slower result was due to the auxiliary system's PCI-e x16 slot running at only PCI-e 2.0 instead of PCI-e 3.0 bandwidth)}, the GTX 660 would be a good match for an i7-3770K with a moderately overclocked CPU, 32GB of RAM and a two-disk RAID 0 with the latest-generation 7200 RPM disks (such as the 1TB to 3TB models in the Seagate 7200.14 line). In fact, the GTX 660 scored the same (38 seconds) as my old GTX 560 Ti 448 (which should really have been named a GTX 570 LE instead of its released name) in the MPEG-2 DVD portion of the PPBM6 test suite.
Message was edited by: RjL190365

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

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for