You are not logged in.
I have found this comparative in my feeds.... what do you think?
I arch, you arch, he arch, she arch, we arch, they arch...
Offline
I have found this comparative in my feeds.... what do you think?
Is that in Spanish?
It looks like a speed-comparison. If that's right it looks comparable to my own speed-tests (done with a stopwatch).
Arch is a great system, but Debian is faster in some occasions.
Oh God that hurt to say out loud.
Offline
As much as I at one time liked GNU/Linux Debian... Debian is released slowly, once every 1 to 3 years is an offical stable release available, and quickly goes out of date, and sometimes updated packages just are a no-show in the repositories.
Last edited by Chaniyth (2008-03-12 01:33:10)
Offline
Here is a english translation of the page...
Debian 4 versus Centos 5 versus ArchLinux 2007.08-2
Initial archives: pruebas.mpg pruebastxt.tgz
Previous: to tar xzf pruebastxt.tgz --> textsFILE SYSTEM
if=/dev/zero of=pruebas.0 count=1000000 (writing of 51è10 Bytes)
Debian: 23.723s
Centos: 32.623s
Arch: 26.30sif=pruebas.0 of=/dev/null (reading of 51è10 Bytes)
Debian: 21.004s
Centos: 21.338s
Arch: 22.424sto mkdir test &&
cp tests * test (copy of large archives)
Debian: 53.248s
Centos: 53.896s
Arch: 55.015cp - r texts proves (copy of 3000 text files)
Debian: 12.541s
Centos: 11.913s
Arch: 12.077sCPU
to tar zcf pruebas.tgz pruebas.mpg pruebastxt.tgz texts pruebas.0
(compression gunzip from mixed archives)
Debian: 1m47.846s
Centos: 1m46.409s
Arch: 1m54.466sto tar jcf pruebas.tbz pruebas.mpg pruebastxt.tgz texts pruebas.0
(compression bzip2 from mixed archives)
Debian: 6m04.793s
Centos: 5m41.727s
Arch: 6m46.505sto mencoder - srate 48000 - ovc Copy - oac mp3lame - lameopts cbr:br=128 pruebas.mpg - or pruebas.avi
(codification mp3 route licks)
Debian: 18.236s
Centos: 18.289s
Arch: 18.513sto mencoder - ffourcc xvid - ovc lavc - lavcopts vcodec=mpeg4:vhq:vbitrate=900:vpass=1 - oac Copy pruebas.mpg - or /dev/null
(codification xvid, passed 1)
Debian: 28.712s
Centos: 25.906s
Arch: 26.798sto mencoder - ffourcc xvid - ovc lavc - lavcopts vcodec=mpeg4:vhq:vbitrate=900:vpass=2 - oac Copy pruebas.mpg - or pruebas.avi
(codification xvid, pasada2)
Debian: 29.449s
Centos: 26.611s
Arch: 27.123s/configure -- enable-minimum - enable-batch (forms of mldonkey; it includes to compile ocaml)
Debian: 31m49.571s
Centos: 31m18.420s
Arch: 32m38.118smake (to compile mldonkey)
Debian: 2m37.633s
Centos: 2m31.886s
Arch: 2m46.350sSERVANT SAMBA (samba mounted /mnt/prueba on a remote computer)
cp /mnt/prueba/pruebas.0. (reading a large file)
Debian: 1m15.303s
Centos: 1m13.413s
Arch: 1m13.750scp - r /mnt/prueba/textos. (reading small archives)
Debian: 19.346s
Centos: 20.550s
Arch: 18.123scp prueba.0 /mnt/prueba/ (writing a large file)
Debian: 56.417s
Centos: 60.616s
Arch: 59.035scp - r texts /mnt/prueba/ (writing small archives)
Debian: 19.895s
Centos: 20.800s
Arch: 18.859sMYSQL (remote access with SQL-BENCH)
Perl run-all-tests -- threads=1 -- small-test -- server=mysql - host=192... (1 thread)
Debian: 2m13s
Centos: 2m38s
Arch: 3m37sPerl run-all-tests - threads=5 -- small-test -- server=mysql - host=192... (5 threads)
Debian: 2m12s
Centos: 2m37s
Arch: 3m17sPerl run-all-tests - threads=25 -- small-test -- server=mysql - host=192... (25 threads)
Debian: 2m13s
Centos: 2m39s
Arch: 3m11sPerl run-all-tests - threads=125 -- small-test -- server=mysql - host=192... (125 threads)
Debian: 2m11s
Centos: 2m41s
Arch: 3m34sDynamic APACHE (apache+php+mysql+wordpress, using apache remotely as a benchmark)
/usr/bin/ab - n 64 - c 1(1 request synchronizes)
Debian: 1m10.812s
Centos: 1m07.976s
Arch: 59.387s/usr/bin/ab - n 64 - c 4(4 requests you synchronize)
Debian: 1m10.767s
Centos: 1m08.233s
Arch: 1m00.724s/usr/bin/ab - n 64 - c 16(16 requests you synchronize)
Debian: 1m11.590s
Centos: 1m08.440s
Arch: 1m03.2022s/usr/bin/ab - n 64 - c 64(64 requests you synchronize)
Debian: 1m11.180s
Centos: 1m12.498s
Arch: Error *Static APACHE (apache with static content, using apache remotely as a benchmark)
/usr/bin/ab - n 10000 - c 1 (1 request synchronizes)
Debian: 26.879s
Centos: 30.363s
Arch: 27.523/usr/bin/ab - n 10000 - c 4 (4 requests you synchronize)
Debian: 24.799s
Centos: 28.568s
Arch: 28.207s/usr/bin/ab - n 10000 - c 16 (16 requests you synchronize)
Debian: 24.823s
Centos: 28.695s
Arch: 29.148s/usr/bin/ab - n 10000 - c 64 (64 requests you synchronize)
Debian: 24.839s
Centos: 28.746s
Arch: 29.936* The software used in the tests marked outside time, but Arch continued processing until it finished, about 5 minutes later.
In relation to the test of dynamic apache Arch Linux: I have investigated a little, and would say that it makes very aggressive use of the ram, obtaining spectacular results while there is memory available, but stumbling when there is use of swap.
Offline
arch not the best
just so so
Offline
Isn't Debian build for i386. Surely we don't get negative optimization going to i686....
Anybody have a Debian install along side their Arch and want to do a comparison?
Offline
Iirc Debian is optimized for i686, too. But they use GCC snapshots and iirc some custom C(XX)flags.
Maybe Arch could also use some?
like -march=core2 -mtune=generic ;P
I myself built KDE(mod) and QT from source with custom Cflags and LDFLAGS and it starts much faster now.
Last edited by buddabrod (2008-03-12 08:19:06)
Offline
Here is a english translation of the page...
...
Thanks for the translation.
Isn't Debian build for i386. Surely we don't get negative optimization going to i686....
Anybody have a Debian install along side their Arch and want to do a comparison?
Something is slowing Arch down, and yes Debian is build for i386, well actually i486. Kernels is about the only thing they do build with optimizations.
It's not the same thing (I know), but still usefull in this context I think.
Some startup-times: (time was taken with a stopwatch)
Arch GRUB -> CLI "login"
First boot after clean install (2007.08-2 CD) 18 sec
After update 21 sec
Debian GRUB -> CLI "login"
First boot after clean install (Etch 4.0r0) 17 sec
After update 17-18 sec
Arch
GRUB -> GDM (with theme) 29 sec
GRUB -> GDM (simple - default) 31 sec
GRUB -> KDM 30 sec
GRUB -> SLiM 27 sec
Debian
GRUB -> GDM (with theme) 27-28 sec
GRUB -> GDM (simple) 27-28 sec
GRUB -> KDM (with theme) 30-32 sec
GRUB -> KDM (no theme) 26 sec
All done on the same system, clean install.
The times may get better when the new initscripts comes. But not for certain.
Offline
Isn't Debian build for i386. Surely we don't get negative optimization going to i686....
some tests shows arch is not so good as debian and Centos
maybe that is what arch can change , just because gcc slows down ?
in fact , i realy dont know which is faster, just because i have used ubuntu before ,and i feel ubuntu is slower than arch ,so ..
Offline
Debian *feels* faster and is, but it did never boot as fast as my Arch Linux.
Offline
in fact , i realy dont know which is faster, just because i have used ubuntu before ,and i feel ubuntu is slower than arch ,so ..
Ubuntu IS slow.
Just because it's based on Debian, doesn't mean it is Debian, because Ubuntu is NOT Debian. The same concept goes for any other distro based upon another.
Last edited by Chaniyth (2008-03-12 16:16:25)
Offline
Isn't it possible that some hdparm settings is better on the debian and centos system used for the benchmark?
Haven't been here in a while. Still rocking Arch.
Offline
OK, gonna switch back to Debian now
Never.
(Sorry for the lame post, but I couldn't resist)
Have you Syued today?
Free music for free people! | Earthlings
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- A. de Saint-Exupery
Offline
debian is definitely very fast, but to me arch still seems faster. I don't have X on my debian machine, so it's hard to do 1 to 1 comparison with a gui, but subjectively arch feels faster. it definitely boots faster as buddabrod said.
of course, any improvements arch could make would make it seem even MORE faster.
>>I'm surprised CentOS is so fast. I was thinking of replacing debian on my server with centos just to check it out, but I thought it would probably be a lot slower and more bloated, so why bother with all the extra work it would take to switch. now I'm having second thoughts!
Last edited by slackhack (2008-03-12 16:58:33)
Offline
I'm assuming that this results are genuine. My guess, however, would be that the differences have less to do with distros used and are a function of the kernel that's used in each. I remember reading a benchmark comparing FreeBSD to Linux kernels (see this, for example) and the interesting part was that the 2.6.22 kernel was, on average, a noticeably better performer than more recent kernels -- which is probably due to the fact that the newly introduced CFS scheduler is not yet fully optimized for performance. Of course this is likely to change in the future as the new scheduler matures.
Offline
If you want your system with X boot faster, use evdev for mouse and keyboard. It doesnt sleep for several seconds before starting up ;P
Offline
Got the same spectrum of results when I compared arch against debian i386 in a blender benchmark.
Offline
So - why is Arch comparably slower than Debian, despite being labeled as very light-weight (which does not necessarily apply to Debian)?
celestary
Intel Core2Duo E6300 @ 1.86 GHz
kernel26
KDEmod current repository
Offline
Wild guess. But debian's huge userbase helps it package some stuff into more modules. eg. Haskell's libraries.
But that is a lame excuse. Read that comparison again and you will find Arch beats it in many places too! Check all the dynamic apache shootouts, mencoder. Also make can take different times to run depending on certain factors, like startup delay! I don't use much of perl other than the core stuff that needs perl. And arch definitely feels faster on my PC.
Debian seems to boot way slower than arch. For me, arch boots in say 11 seconds. Deb takes some 18 seconds
Be yourself, because you are all that you can be
Offline
My debian install (partition with Arch on the same machine) starts up some apps faster first time around (eg OOo etc.) and is definitely a speed demon - but boots waaaaay slower than Arch - sometimes its like waiting for a bus. If anyone wants any tests running (logs etc. - I dunno, just a guess) then just shout.
Offline
My debian install (partition with Arch on the same machine) starts up some apps faster first time around (eg OOo etc.) and is definitely a speed demon - but boots waaaaay slower than Arch - sometimes its like waiting for a bus. If anyone wants any tests running (logs etc. - I dunno, just a guess) then just shout.
A few numbers would be nice, if you have the time to spare... Sometimes it's hard to tell if it really is faster or it's just our brain tricking us...
Offline
Are there any terminal commands that measure startup speeds for apps? if not, I'll dig out a trusty stopwatch!
Any suggestions for things to test?
I'll do boot, time from grub-gdm-desktop etc. startup for major apps (Ooo, Firefox, Gimp etc.)
Any others?
Offline
you've got the "time" command. No piping, no nothing.
time pacman -S firefox
Offline
Anything for Debian?
Offline
Ok folks - here are the results of my extremely unscientific tests...
This is on a 1G ram, dual core Tecra A8 - both setups are using compiz and preload, both booting to GDM and Gnome.
Time from Grub to GDM: Arch 32 secs / Debian 57 secs
Time from GDM to desktop: 23 / 38
Time to shutdown: 14 / 28
Cold start (hot in brackets) - OOo-Writer: 9.5 (1.2) / 8 (1.5)
Firefox/IceWeasel: 5.2 (4.8) / 10 (4.5)
Gimp: 5 (3) / 8 (2)
Epiphany 4.2 (1.8) / 2.7 (1)
VLC: 1 (instant) / 2 (instant)
Exaile: 4.5 (2) / 4.5 (1.5)
Terminal: 1.2 (instant) / 1.2 (instant)
And the winner is....
Booting etc. = clearly Arch by a mile
Cold starts: Arch 3, Debian 2
Hot starts: Arch 1, Debian 4
So there we have it - conclusive proof if ever there was any that I have way too much time on my hands!
Offline