I tried Arch a couple of months ago and I remember it being speedy. Now a few days ago I decided to install it again and start using it, but found it to be not so fast as I remembered. So I downloaded Archie to see the difference and did a little test (nothing scientific, just to check).
I opened a 1Mb image in The Gimp and applied the filter Artistic>Cubism with default settings. Here are the results I got (time to process the picture):
Archie: 26 secs
Arch: 38 secs
Vector: 32 secs
Ubuntu: 38 secs
I thought there was something wrong with Arch, probably the kernel. So since kernel 2.6.12 just came out I thought it should soon be available in Arch's repository and I could try it. So today I saw kernel-2.6.12mm in the extra repository and installed it. Did the same test and this time I got 26 secs.
So now my questions are:
Did anyone else notice this performance problem with kernel 126.96.36.199?
Is the "mm" kernel a standard one or is it a testing/unstable/performance enhanced one? Should I keep it or better wait until 2.6.12 is in the current repository?
Any idea about why so much difference between the two kernels?
The question is what are you compiling into your kernel and what is you hardware? I can boot from press power button to login in about 7 seconds. You add 2 seconds to boot to X/blackbox.
P4 2.8Ghz @ 2.8Ghz SL6WT
865PE Neo-2 LS BIOs 2.4
512mb Mushkin Level II
160GB Maxtor HD
Geforce 4 440MX
Antec 3700 1 exhaust and 1 intake fans
Linux user 314187
I didn't compile the kernel, just installed the default one.
And my hardare is quite standard: Pentiun IV 2.6Ghz 512 RAM. My boot time is about 30 secs (using KDE)
However, I'm just wondering why with kernel 188.8.131.52 it took 38 secs to complete a task that only took 26 secs with kernel 2.6.12mm. I want to know if MY kernel 184.108.40.206 is wrong or if it's slow for everyone (compared to previous ones or to this 2.6.12mm).
Please notice that those distros might not have the same kernel. So... are you comparing distro or kernel times? Those are definitely distro times, since I can't see what kernel they use.
:: / my web presence
I just did the test with other distros to see what the difference was. Because I thought that Arch, being a fast distro i686 optimized should be faster than others, and since it wasn't I thought it might be a problem with the kernel.
However, the important thing is that with this new 2.6.12mm kernel the performance boot is quite important.
So again, is this "mm" kernel a stardard one? Is there no problem in using it? And if it is a standard one, why so much difference? If anyone else wants to try installing this 2.6.12mm from extra and test it, we could see if it's just my problem or a general problem with this specific kernel-220.127.116.11 (as I said, I tried arch a few months ago (the kernel was probably 2.6.10.x) and it was fast.
Can't answer any of the questions you pose, but 2.6.12mm runs fine for me. (I never timed anything before I upgraded). It seems a little faster but that's very subjective
Been using it several hours now and so far no issues.
Using 2.6.12-mm1 here... Seems to result in a perceptible speed increase.