Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

solarwind · 2008-10-18 17:28:03

This is not a flame war thread.

I'm just asking you guys the question.

I tried Ubuntu 8.10 beta and Arch Linux on my desktop. Same software, same hardware, everything. My distro of choice: Arch Linux. Why?

Well, to me it seems that Arch Linux was faster in everything: bootup, shutdown, running apps, starting apps, resizing windows, scrolling in firefox. Everything seemed a lot snapier. Ubuntu seemed slow as always. Used Gnome on both, same kernel version, same gnome version.

Now I'm asking you guys the question: am I just bias or is this really the case? Is Arch Linux really that much snappier than Ubuntu or am I just turning mental?

I'm contemplating between putting Arch Linux or Ubuntu on my laptop. I love both distros but I want to know which one you think is faster (on the whole). And please don't give me that "its like comparing apples to oranges" nonsense; I know what I'm talking about. I want to hear your experiences.

Dieter@be · 2008-10-18 17:37:18

Ubuntu just installs/starts lots, and lots of stuff by default (daemons and applications like crash reporter, configuration panels,...).
Also they compile lots of stuff into the kernel (the kernel was 6.5MB big last time I checked.) Don't think that makes much difference though. It's just all those damn daemons and processes...

Odd-rationale · 2008-10-18 18:27:15

Another reason could be that Arch Linux is optimized for the i686 processor. While Ubunut is i386.

ccosta · 2008-10-18 18:28:23

Hi solarwind

I switched from Debian/Ubuntu to Arch recently, and my impressions are: Arch is very very fast then Ubuntu... and the memory footprint of Arch is minor then Ubuntu, 173MB running a complete XFCE desktop. I wonder Gnome compiled with i686 flag run really fast on Arch and Ubuntu don't use this flag. With Arch I have the control to setup several aspects of my system.

You can see how Ubuntu is memory consuming using a simple test:
- run pstree as root:

sudo pstree

- In the output, try to found and to count those several consolekit process running at background, I counted 61 at this moment

My two cents!

Last edited by ccosta (2008-10-18 18:40:25)

solarwind · 2008-10-18 19:05:09

ccosta wrote:

Hi solarwind
I switched from Debian/Ubuntu to Arch recently, and my impressions are: Arch is very very fast then Ubuntu... and the memory footprint of Arch is minor then Ubuntu, 173MB running a complete XFCE desktop. I wonder Gnome compiled with i686 flag run really fast on Arch and Ubuntu don't use this flag. With Arch I have the control to setup several aspects of my system.
You can see how Ubuntu is memory consuming using a simple test:
- run pstree as root:
sudo pstree
- In the output, try to found and to count those several consolekit process running at background, I counted 61 at this moment
My two cents!

Totally agree with you. My full Gnome setup takes only 170 MB. On Ubuntu it is upwards of 350 MB.

Looks like Arch is going on my laptop.

wirenik · 2008-10-18 23:01:07

Yeah, I think the major thing with Ubuntu is that it automatically starts so many processes and daemons and such in the background, whereas with Arch we have complete control over what starts.

dmz · 2008-10-18 23:19:11

Hm. About that pstree thingy. What's "normal", for i.e a Gnome desktop? Mine looks like this:

init─┬─5*[agetty]
     ├─bash───firefox───5*[{firefox}]
     ├─crond
     ├─dhcpcd
     ├─login───bash───startx───xinit─┬─X
     │                               └─awesome───awesome
     ├─mpd───mpd───mpd
     ├─mpdscribble───mpdscribble
     ├─syslog-ng
     ├─udevd
     ├─urxvt───bash───screen───screen─┬─bash───pebrot
     │                                ├─bash───ncmpcpp
     │                                ├─irssi
     │                                └─rtorrent
     ├─urxvt───bash───vi
     ├─urxvt───bash───xcompmgr
     ├─urxvt───bash
     ├─urxvt───bash───su───bash───pstree
     └─xclip

timetrap · 2008-10-18 23:34:07

I have a theory about OS development.

"Once an OS is ready to be used by the majority of users. That OS ceases to be relevant." --timetrap

This applies in a limited way to linux, in general linux is NOT an OS, Ubunutu/RedHat/SUSE/ are.

I don't think of Arch as an OS. It's more of a framework for pacman.

Square · 2008-10-18 23:44:57

timetrap wrote:

I don't think of Arch as an OS. It's more of a framework for pacman.

This is a better quote than the other one you gave

As for the topic, Arch is much, much faster than Ubuntu at defaults. It's not your imagination.
As long as you, the admin, don't bloat it... it will always be faster than Ubuntu.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-10-18 17:28:03

Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#2 2008-10-18 17:37:18

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#3 2008-10-18 18:27:15

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#4 2008-10-18 18:28:23

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#5 2008-10-18 19:05:09

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#6 2008-10-18 23:01:07

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#7 2008-10-18 23:19:11

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#8 2008-10-18 23:34:07

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

#9 2008-10-18 23:44:57

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux in Terms of Speed

Board footer