Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

Vrantheo · 2013-09-08 11:41:25

My wireless router at home provides an 802.11n network (WPA2-PSK, DHCP, no SSID broadcast) and my laptop connects to it for most of the day (seldom needs to move).

Which are the most efficient (say, fastest) choices? Furthermore, how can we make judgements when it comes to other usecases, for example wired ethernet or constant switching between networks?

Last edited by Vrantheo (2013-09-08 13:49:12)

tomk · 2013-09-08 11:55:18

My laptop is similarly connected to just one network, and I use netctl for that. No idea if it's the most efficient/fastest, because I haven't tried anything else.

Clearly, if you want to make your own judgements, you should evaluate try the various options yourself.

Vrantheo · 2013-09-08 13:55:35

tomk wrote:

My laptop is similarly connected to just one network, and I use netctl for that. No idea if it's the most efficient/fastest, because I haven't tried anything else.
Clearly, if you want to make your own judgements, you should evaluate try the various options yourself.

Just fixed my typo in the title. I'm currently on Netctl indeed.

I've tried a few but human conception is hard to tell. Any idea for conducting benchmarks?

tomk · 2013-09-08 17:36:33

Can we assume you meant 'perception' there? If not, this thread just went waaay off topic.

Well, you're concerned about which is fastest, so you want to measure how long each utility takes to establish a working connection.

Last edited by tomk (2013-09-08 17:40:07)

Trilby · 2013-09-08 17:40:25

If your needs are simple, there is likely no need for netctl or connman or any other such thing.

In fact, I even read a thread recently describing (new?) behavior of dhcpcd: it will run wpa_supplicant itself if it is needed. This seems bass acwkards to me, but in either case, wpa_supplicant <some-flags> && dhcpcd <wireless-interface> is all you'd need.

Last edited by Trilby (2013-09-08 17:40:46)

WonderWoofy · 2013-09-08 19:20:43

I user connman-git persoanlly. It is not the most polished network manager, but I like it. It connects incredibly fast, and the reconnection is particularly fast (like when resuming the computer from suspend).

But there is no real answer to your question here. You should just try them all and see what you like best. I actually have connman-git, netctl, wicd, and NetworkManager all installed on my system… oh and I think I still have swifer-git as well (thanks Trilby). I used to switch all the time, but I find that connman-git suits my needs quite well. Connmanctl is pretty neat too, and it has completion. The only downside is that from the CLI only, you cannot connect to a netwrok by its name (you have to use the output from connmanctl services which gives a long, rather inconvenient, string to identify networks).

Vrantheo · 2013-09-09 03:07:06

tomk wrote:

Can we assume you meant 'perception' there? If not, this thread just went waaay off topic.
Well, you're concerned about which is fastest, so you want to measure how long each utility takes to establish a working connection.

Oops. Pardon my English not being my first language.

My concern isn't just about connection speed though. NetworkManager consumes significantly more boot time than the rest so I wouldn't prefer that.

WonderWoofy wrote:

Connmanctl is pretty neat too, and it has completion. The only downside is that from the CLI only, you cannot connect to a netwrok by its name (you have to use the output from connmanctl services which gives a long, rather inconvenient, string to identify networks).

Connman has a few GUI frontends mentioned in the wiki. I hope the GNOME Shell one can be more updated as well.

WonderWoofy · 2013-09-09 03:15:32

Vrantheo wrote:

Connman has a few GUI frontends mentioned in the wiki. I hope the GNOME Shell one can be more updated as well.

I don't use gui frontends for any of these things. I prefer the command line over those kinds of things. But I will admit that having tried out connman-ui-git out of pure curiosity, it does make the creation of the the profiles pretty easy and convenient.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-09-08 11:41:25

Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

#2 2013-09-08 11:55:18

Re: Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

#3 2013-09-08 13:55:35

Re: Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

#4 2013-09-08 17:36:33

Re: Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

#5 2013-09-08 17:40:25

Re: Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

#6 2013-09-08 19:20:43

Re: Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

#7 2013-09-09 03:07:06

Re: Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

#8 2013-09-09 03:15:32

Re: Choosing Between Netctl/Connman, dhcpcd/dhclient

Board footer