You are not logged in.

#1 2008-08-05 01:31:41

pogeymanz
Member
Registered: 2008-03-11
Posts: 1,020

Arch vs. Crux?

What is the difference? Be as technical as you can.

I know Arch takes a lot of ideas from Crux and they both use BSD-style init scripts. They are also compiled for i686 and have minimal base installs.

So, why is it that K.Mandla's PIII boots Crux faster than Arch. And he has to work really hard to make an Arch setup run almost as fast as a Crux setup?

...I tried to find the quote from his blog, but now I can't find it. He basically said that he is trying to make Arch run like Crux the way he tried to make Ubuntu run like Arch a year ago.

How does Crux do stuff that makes it different?

Offline

#2 2008-08-05 02:11:17

cactus
Taco Eater
From: t͈̫̹ͨa͖͕͎̱͈ͨ͆ć̥̖̝o̫̫̼s͈̭̱̞͍̃!̰
Registered: 2004-05-25
Posts: 4,615
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

By 'run as fast' I assume you mean 'boot as fast', since that is what you mentioned fisrt. Unless there were benchmarks of some kind that he was basing his findings off during runtime. Boot speed has little bearing on how responsive and/or fast a system *runs*.

I am curious to see the original reference though. Was it anything more than a few seconds difference?

Anyway..I don't know very much about the current state of Crux. However, some historical key differences have been with regard to the package manager. Crux had (maybe still has) a collection of utilities that are loosely bound, which perform package management.

(Note! This following sentence is mostly supposition. Ask Judd for greater clarity).
Judd liked the concept of these utilities (I assume) and wrote the first several iterations of pacman to /logically/ bring a similar package management system under the umbrella of one package management utility.

If you look at Crux build defintions, they still look quite a bit like a PKGBUILD. Example: http://www.andreasbaumann.cc/crux/ports/apache/Pkgfile

With regard to boot speed, in general the slowest parts of an Arch boot are:
1. Udev scripts. The arch udev start script does _quite a bit_ of work when it fires off during boot. That is where most of my boot time is spent. The udev run after kinit is much slower, as it does more. The udev hooks that run before kinit handoff (inside initrd), still take a bit, but nowhere near as long (as it seems to me).
2. If you start alot of daemons _serially_, they you could experience some slowness more towards the end of startup.
3. initramfs takes a little while to unpack and do the dirty. Reasonable tradeoff given what it does (or can do) for you.
4. Maybe device probing. This would be pretty dependent on kernel version and compiled in features I imagine.

My arch VMs start up pretty damn quick though.
If you *really* wanted to speed up boot, you could:
- compile modules into the kernel, and ditch initrd/initramfs
- background as many daemons as safely possible in your DAEMONS array
- dive into the udev startup scripts and try to make them faster

Most the above I would classify as fairly pointless optimization, with the possible exception of the udev start scripts. Ask someone who works on them to tell you more.


"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍

Offline

#3 2008-08-05 02:17:10

pogeymanz
Member
Registered: 2008-03-11
Posts: 1,020

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

I've only read K.Mandla refer to boot times, so that's what I'm basing off of.

It just seems like he really gets his hands dirty no matter what distro he uses, but he still said Arch was a few seconds slower.

Offline

#4 2008-08-05 02:27:32

kensai
Member
From: Puerto Rico
Registered: 2005-06-03
Posts: 2,475
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

I must say, CRUX boots faster than anything I have tried on this system. But once you have the system and the DE or WM running, there is not much diference (if any).


Follow me in: Identi.ca, Twitter, Google+

Offline

#5 2008-08-05 03:13:31

tigrmesh
IRC Op
From: Florida, US
Registered: 2007-12-11
Posts: 794

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Here is K Mandla's post about how he gets those fast boot times:  http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2008/06/08 … with-crux/.

Offline

#6 2008-08-05 04:30:01

coarseSand
Member
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: 2008-02-11
Posts: 203

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

De-railing this for a second, I have a 30 second reboot time. From the BIOS POST message to login takes almost 30 seconds exactly (skipping GRUB kernel selection fast as I can), and given how fast I can type my login and startx command I'm in X running Openbox with all my daemons and .xinitrc start-ups by the 34 second mark. That would be pretty darned good for a tweaked system, and I haven't even done that; it's a pure vanilla system. I'm sure it would go faster with a custom kernel the way K.Mandla describes, but sticking to a single tool to update my system regularly is more important to me as it isn't a production machine.

P.S. That signature is really creepy Kensai, since I just now finished watching Sweeney Todd.


vim? EMACS? Pssh, I code in Scribus.

Offline

#7 2008-08-05 08:58:26

Blice
Member
Registered: 2008-08-05
Posts: 29

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

One of the main differences is that Crux is source based. Everything is compiled- That's most of the reason why Mandla has gotten his system so fast, he has a specific preference on what CFLAGS and compile options to use for every package he compiles. Sort of how the only difference between Swiftfox and Firefox is that Swiftfox is compiled using optimization cflags etc., and it loads much faster because of it. So just imagine that but with every package on your system, including your kernel.

Offline

#8 2008-08-05 13:04:31

patroclo7
Member
From: Bassano del Grappa, ITALY
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 913

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Another difference: in CRUX you are forced to configure and compile your own kernel and you are not invited to use an initcpio/initramfs/initrd. If you configure your kernel correctly, and perhaps with everything you need into the kernel, then your boot time can decrease. But obviously you can configure and compile your own kernel also in arch and in any other distro I know of: on the contrary in CRUX you are forced to, during installation.

Last edited by patroclo7 (2008-08-05 13:06:05)


Mortuus in anima, curam gero cutis

Offline

#9 2008-08-05 14:11:50

kensai
Member
From: Puerto Rico
Registered: 2005-06-03
Posts: 2,475
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

I do like their forcing to compile the kernel option, I have always loved to manually compile my kernel with only the modules I need built in. And they make this in a great way, the kernel is not part of the package manager, you have to manually upgrade it every time.

Still, they have many caveats, to say at leas one, every package is downloaded from the original source, this means sometimes when you feel like leaving the whole upgrade process run by itself overnight, you might find it failed to download the second package and nothing was done.

Last edited by kensai (2008-08-05 14:12:42)


Follow me in: Identi.ca, Twitter, Google+

Offline

#10 2008-08-05 14:49:08

DonVla
Member
From: Bonn, Germany
Registered: 2007-06-07
Posts: 997

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

you could start optimizing your system, but the time you spend compiling kernel, tweaking start-up scripts, etc, does often not keep balance wih the (boot) speed you gain. that's why i dislike source based distros.
at first glance it looks promising, but then you lose yourself in changing/tweaking/compiling stuff all the time. nothing´s really won.
if you really want fast booting then you should use suspend even on desktop machines.
i actually reboot my system only on kernel upgrades. so i get uptimes from 1-2 weeks or more. with suspend my system is up in about 10 seconds.
that's a gain and you can start where you left.

vlad

Last edited by DonVla (2008-08-05 14:51:42)

Offline

#11 2008-08-05 15:47:45

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Crux installs base except the kernel which you have to compile too as mentioned above, and then its 100% source based through ports.
Crux today doesnt do UTF-8. Crux doesnt have internalization, translations are removed from packages, many of which are compiled with --disable-nls so you have to use english or hack the ports tree.
Crux does not hold your hand like Archlinux does.


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#12 2008-08-05 19:54:25

patroclo7
Member
From: Bassano del Grappa, ITALY
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 913

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Well, I admit that, when I used CRUX as my main distribution , I saw the lack of internalization as a feature which simplified greatly the packaging and allowed me to use any software in the language in which it was thought by its author. And no, I am not a native English speaker. Nonetheless I understand that there are scenarios of usage where this may sound impolite or cause problems.


Mortuus in anima, curam gero cutis

Offline

#13 2008-08-05 20:18:58

fwojciec
Member
Registered: 2007-05-20
Posts: 1,411

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Of the things that haven't been said yet:
1) Crux is not a true rolling release: it has periodic releases that update the core set of packages (toolchain, etc.)
2) At the moment it is i686/32bit only (although there are semi/un-official ports to other architectures); there is no multi-arch support on the package management level.
3) Although there is dependency resolution during installation of ports, when ports are removed unnecessary dependencies need to be removed manually -- "orphans" are simply packages that no other package depends on, there is no distinction between explicitly installed and installed as dependency for other package.
4) Everything is even more default, minimal, and unpatched compared to Arch.
5) Default kernel is very minimal, so in most cases the user will customize it by enabling additional features (which is a better way to learn about kernel configuration than when you have to disable unnecessary options, IMO).
6) UTF-8 is not the default (it might be in the next release), but it's easily enabled.
7) I find it is necessary to create/maintain my own ports for Crux; in Arch repos+AUR have most of what I need.
8) Crux user community is mailing list only.
9) Crux specific documentation is rather limited -- but most generic Linux solutions work or are easily adapted to Crux.
10) In normal use I see no significant speed/performance differences between Arch and Crux.

Offline

#14 2008-08-06 05:42:33

k.mandla
Member
From: Japan
Registered: 2006-05-16
Posts: 86
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Hi everybody. Sorry I wasn't able to contribute until now. Work responsibilities, of course. hmm

I started tinkering with Crux because I had a K6-2 I wanted to revive, and the results were staggering. If Lowarch hadn't faded to nothing, or if there was another Arch-like option for i586 machines, I probably wouldn't have ever tried it.

Otherwise I don't think I can add much to the conversation that hasn't already been mentioned. I find Crux to be as satisfying as Arch, with a considerable improvement in performance. Of course, there's not much I can do to measure that, so I qualify that statement with a generalized "in my experience." wink I can, however, vouch for a slight improvement in frame rates on my graphics card.

As far as time lost to compiling, I would agree that the time lost to building new software will negate the speed improvement -- but only the first time. If I stash a binary, I can have an updated package installed in a matter of seconds, which is helpful since I have three PIII compatibles all using the same software at one time or another. Compile once on the fastest, then copy and install on the others. No problem.

I also used to agree with DonVla, that compiling was wasted time, but I learned to be clever about it -- saving updates for a large batch and building them overnight once a week, or something like that. I haven't lost any usage time to compiling in a long while, since I take care of those things at times when I wouldn't be using the computer anyway. And as far as setting up a base system, I find I can get a fundamental, command-line only system in place in about 25 minutes on a 1Ghz machine, with the bulk of that time going to building the kernel. After that, it depends on what I install. wink

I also don't care for the meager dependency handling; I like a clean and light system, and since removing a package doesn't rake up the leftovers, I do get a little irked at that. So much of Crux is "do it yourself" though, that I will occasionally clean up after it, if I really feel I have to.

I think the only other complaint I could make is that the "official" (if you will let me call it that) software array is terribly slim. By comparison, Arch-plus-AUR make for a vast buffet of software. But if you've ever messed with PKGBUILDs or installed something manually on your own, it's not that scary. And lucky me, someone has come up with a little script that more-or-less converts PKGBUILDs to Pkgfiles. big_smile

So those are my only suggestions or notes that are worth repeating. If you've ever built something out of AUR or transplanted your own kernel into Arch or tried the pacbuilder script, you might be interested in it. I still use Arch a lot (I have it installed right now, as a matter of fact), and I rely on Arch far more than I do on Ubuntu, but I find Crux to be a better fit for me. Cheers!


Linux user No. 409907

Offline

#15 2008-08-06 12:34:46

jcolinzheng
Member
From: Cambridge, MA
Registered: 2008-08-06
Posts: 50
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

>> Be as technical as you can.
Here are some technical differences not yet mentioned.
CRUX doesn't support MAKEDEPENDS (there might be a reason to it as CRUX is source based, but I don't see that yet), but Arch does.
CRUX doesn't support background services in rc.conf, but Arch does.
CRUX doesn't store the install scripts in the (binary) package tarball, but Arch does.
CRUX doesn't have the option to remove .la files, but makepkg does.
(IIRC) CRUX doesn't allow one to choose between UTC and LOCAL TIME for hwclock, but Arch does.
CRUX doesn't have network scripts such as netcfg; one is supposed to write his own network profile manager (e.g. by symlinking /etc/rc.d/net to the active network profile).
In CRUX syslog is not a service one can toggle; it's always run.
CRUX doesn't have an option to "prepare" a source tarball as makepkg does ---  CRUX only downloads, not extract, the source tarball.

Those are by the way small differences easily reduced by tinkering the CRUX scripts.

For boot times, CRUX is actually marginally slower than an optimized Arch (one that has custom kernel, doesn't load redundant modules, etc), perhaps because it never starts services in the background.  Udev is used by both distro.

Last edited by jcolinzheng (2008-08-06 12:37:58)

Offline

#16 2008-08-06 12:49:09

jcolinzheng
Member
From: Cambridge, MA
Registered: 2008-08-06
Posts: 50
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Arch and CRUX are great sibling distros IMO.  For example, Arch packages can be installed in CRUX directly by just renaming the package file to what CRUX considers a binary package tarball.  And their build scripts convertible both ways (well, except for MAKEDEPENDS).

I have Arch installed for my Dad, and CRUX on my own laptop.  Arch is CRUX extroverted.

Offline

#17 2008-08-06 13:14:39

dhave
Arch Linux f@h Team Member
From: Outside the matrix.
Registered: 2005-05-15
Posts: 1,110

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Blice wrote:

One of the main differences is that Crux is source based. Everything is compiled- That's most of the reason why Mandla has gotten his system so fast, he has a specific preference on what CFLAGS and compile options to use for every package he compiles. Sort of how the only difference between Swiftfox and Firefox is that Swiftfox is compiled using optimization cflags etc., and it loads much faster because of it. So just imagine that but with every package on your system, including your kernel.

I think you'd find a lot of people who disagree. In my several years of using Gentoo, I seldom saw a performance difference -- not a noticeable one, anyway -- by using a source-based, custom compiled system.

And in Arch, when I've experimented with custom-compiling everything in core and extra (using pacbuilder), I saw no real difference.

At any rate, this debate will probably never be entirely resolved. I will say that custom compiling everything gave me a good feeling, since I could tell myself that I had optimized everything to the limit. But I don't know that the performance difference, if there was any, was ever perceptible or even measurable.


Donate to Arch!

Tired? There's a nap for that. --anonymous

Offline

#18 2008-08-06 14:11:26

patroclo7
Member
From: Bassano del Grappa, ITALY
Registered: 2006-01-11
Posts: 913

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

jcolinzheng wrote:

Arch is CRUX extroverted.

Nice synthesis. It applies also to the nature of the community. CRUX's community is little, austere, sober and a bit introverted (only a mailing list, where you are allowed to talk EXCLUSIVELY about matters specific to CRUX: no chat, no upstream bugs, no free discussions).
They are also strictly committed to the DIY law: do not go in that mailing list and ask for a feature without providing a patch, the answers could be harsh.


Mortuus in anima, curam gero cutis

Offline

#19 2008-08-06 14:13:54

dhave
Arch Linux f@h Team Member
From: Outside the matrix.
Registered: 2005-05-15
Posts: 1,110

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

patroclo7 wrote:
jcolinzheng wrote:

Arch is CRUX extroverted.

Nice synthesis. It applies also to the nature of the community. CRUX's community is little, austere, sober and a bit introverted (only a mailing list, where you are allowed to talk EXCLUSIVELY about matters specific to CRUX: no chat, no upstream bugs, no free discussions).
They are also strictly committed to the DIY law: do not go in that mailing list and ask for a feature without providing a patch, the answers could be harsh.

"Different strokes for different folks." (Sly Stone)


Donate to Arch!

Tired? There's a nap for that. --anonymous

Offline

#20 2008-08-07 04:49:03

Blice
Member
Registered: 2008-08-05
Posts: 29

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

dhave wrote:
Blice wrote:

One of the main differences is that Crux is source based. Everything is compiled- That's most of the reason why Mandla has gotten his system so fast, he has a specific preference on what CFLAGS and compile options to use for every package he compiles. Sort of how the only difference between Swiftfox and Firefox is that Swiftfox is compiled using optimization cflags etc., and it loads much faster because of it. So just imagine that but with every package on your system, including your kernel.

I think you'd find a lot of people who disagree. In my several years of using Gentoo, I seldom saw a performance difference -- not a noticeable one, anyway -- by using a source-based, custom compiled system.

And in Arch, when I've experimented with custom-compiling everything in core and extra (using pacbuilder), I saw no real difference.

At any rate, this debate will probably never be entirely resolved. I will say that custom compiling everything gave me a good feeling, since I could tell myself that I had optimized everything to the limit. But I don't know that the performance difference, if there was any, was ever perceptible or even measurable.

Using optimized/unsafe Cflags and other compiling options? I agree that just a compile vs. binary isn't much of a difference at all, but when you start messing with compiler settings you can get some different results..

Offline

#21 2008-08-11 21:11:15

Ashren
Member
From: Denmark
Registered: 2007-06-13
Posts: 1,221
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

Just tried out Crux and I like its simplicity, but I dislike compiling for hours (try compiling gnome) when there is no discernable speed increase.

It was a good experience since I was forced to compile my own kernel and learn a bit about its guts at the same time.

Last edited by Ashren (2008-08-11 21:11:34)

Offline

#22 2008-08-12 17:00:52

Cosay
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2008-08-12
Posts: 82
Website

Re: Arch vs. Crux?

I'll give Crux a try when a 64 bit version of it becomes available.

Last edited by Cosay (2008-08-17 20:18:13)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB