About the performance of compiled vs binary

gsiliceo · 2008-05-01 03:00:41

I'm seriously thinking on installing arch in my dads laptop, as i've seen that its the one of the fastest distros out there.
My question is: programs and applications are faster if you compile them oposed as getting the binaries, just because you compiled them?
And, do you recommend this distro for the use of a linux newbie? consider that i'll do all the initial setup and the user won't need to install/configure anything.

whaler · 2008-05-01 03:51:54

gsiliceo wrote:

I'm seriously thinking on installing arch in my dads laptop, as i've seen that its the one of the fastest distros out there.
My question is: programs and applications are faster if you compile them oposed as getting the binaries, just because you compiled them?
And, do you recommend this distro for the use of a linux newbie? consider that i'll do all the initial setup and the user won't need to install/configure anything.

My take is that you would gain very little, if anything, in terms of noticable speed gains by compiling yourself. There may be other reasons to compile a kernel or a program yourself, like e.g. "hidden" features.

If your father is just going to use Arch, not do any configuration, go for it. Once set up, Archlinux is just like any other distro. Only much better, of course

Sigi · 2008-05-01 04:10:11

Programs and applications don't run faster just because you compiled them. They run faster because some of the compilation settings can be optimized for a certain type of system, for example a CPU, or by optimizing the compiled code. A rather big increase in speed is achieved by compiling generic binaries optimized for the i686 technology. Arch packages are already compiled for i686. Some special applications, mplayer comes to mind, profit more than other apps from the compilation for a specific CPU. Arch offers two possibilities how you could use them:

1. by recompiling the package using the abs
2. by installing precompiled packages from the AUR, such as swiftfox3-pentium-m 3.0pre-1.

Most of the time, recompiling packages is not worth the time you gain through it. Gentoo users might disagree here, so this is only IMHO

To your second question: Arch is simple, but not easy. This means it is slick, fast and generally well documented. It might not be the right distro for a user new to linux. If you set it up for someone, however, things look different. It all depends on how well you explain your setup to the user of the system and on how thoroughly you test a system update. Arch uses rolling release, system updates are smooth most of the time. However, as with every other bleeding edge distro out there, things might break. It is generally a good idea to read the last headlines of the Arch HP before doing a system update on a very outdated system and to read the output of pacman while updating the system.

Have fun and welcome to the Arch Forum, by the way.

Best regards, Sigi

ozar · 2008-05-01 04:17:11

I agree with the others and have never really gained any noticeable speed by compiling from source, that being with Gentoo, or Arch packages. It is nice to have some control and input in the packages to be installed, though.

iphitus · 2008-05-01 08:20:30

Put simply, the time spent compiling, would by many magnitudes outweigh the time saved by any 'optimised' binaries.

gsiliceo · 2008-05-01 17:55:11

Thank you so much guys, i think this distro will do the trick, since is so fast cpu usage will be lower and battery life will be longer, boot time will help here too. I think dad will be pleased when i compare the battery duration in his windows xp vs arch. By the way he will be dual booting, xp when lappy is plugged in to electricity and arch when using battery.
By the way i suscribed to this post, but im not getting email notifications, how do i change this?

Last edited by gsiliceo (2008-05-01 17:55:50)

Sigi · 2008-05-01 19:04:41

Just make sure that you configure all the power saving features (search for "pm-tools", "graphic card power states" and "powertop" if you need help on this topic)

About the subscription: are you sure you entered the correct mail address in your profile? The notification might just be delayed...

B-Con · 2008-05-01 23:17:57

gsiliceo wrote:

By the way i suscribed to this post, but im not getting email notifications, how do i change this?

Are you browsing the forum when a reply is posted? I seem to recall browsing the forums, subscribing to a couple of threads, and then noting updates in those threads without getting any e-mail notification.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-05-01 03:00:41

About the performance of compiled vs binary

#2 2008-05-01 03:51:54

Re: About the performance of compiled vs binary

#3 2008-05-01 04:10:11

Re: About the performance of compiled vs binary

#4 2008-05-01 04:17:11

Re: About the performance of compiled vs binary

#5 2008-05-01 08:20:30

Re: About the performance of compiled vs binary

#6 2008-05-01 17:55:11

Re: About the performance of compiled vs binary

#7 2008-05-01 19:04:41

Re: About the performance of compiled vs binary

#8 2008-05-01 23:17:57

Re: About the performance of compiled vs binary

Board footer