Arch Linux 2009.08 Benchmarks

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Arch Linux 2009.08 Benchmarks

Arch Linux 2009.08 was released earlier this week with a new installer, more automatic configuration settings, many core package updates, and other changes to this growingly popular distribution. At the request of some readers, we have carried out some quick benchmarks to get a general understanding of where Arch Linux 2009.08 is performing in comparison to Ubuntu 9.04.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14106

[L33F3R]

seems most of the sway is either kernel based or filesystem based. I dont know how arch users feel abut the results but I will take the single digit fps hit in tech 3....

[Zhick]

The difference in the sqlite-benchmark is easily explained: kernels >= 2.6.30 default to data=writeback for ext3, but not for ext4. I'm sure if you'd configure Archs ext4-fs with data=writeback as well it would probably end up at least as fast.

[sharms]

I think a big problem with Arch is (that most people gloss over) is the lack of package authenticity.

You have no good automated way via pacman to determine if you are getting the package from Arch, or if from some other party. If someone hacks a mirror, you have no way of knowing.

[Apopas]

The benchmark would be better if instead of Ubuntu we had Fedora which uses newer kernel and ext4.

[SyXbiT]

Thanks for the benchmarks
One this is benchmarking different kernels or file systems.
but this is doing everything at the same time.
distro, kernel, gcc, file system etc..

I would like to see Arch compared to a distro with very similar versions of kernel and with ext4.

Could I recommend a benchmark of Ubuntu 9.10 to the current Arch Linux at the time.
My guess is that around then they'll both be on 2.6.31, ext4 and gcc 4.4

Right now there are too many variables

[Arch64]

Hmm, even though I am an Arch user, I can see that this benchmark is a bit unfair for Ubuntu, since it uses an older fs (ext3) and an older kernel.

It would be better to have made an additional benchmark with an ext4 Ubuntu installation or/and an Ubuntu 9.10 installation (note: Ubuntu 9.10 has though testing packages, like GNOME 2.28 beta which isn't even in [testing] in Arch yet).

[Vadi]

Well, it's nice. Not that big of a performance difference to switch to a less pampered distro though.

[RealNC]

This is a nice article for people wanting to switch to Arch due to its rolling release nature and were afraid that it might be slower than Ubuntu.

[MùPùF]

The goal of the distributions's benchmark is to test default choices of made by the distributions. They are all based on the same projects.

What is great with testing Arch is that it is guaranteed to be as vanilla as possible. It is also using the latest stable versions.

Thanks Michael for doing the test, hope you'll keep this version so as we may see more tests involving ArchLinux :)

[kraftman]

It's nice to see such benchmark :)

[Apopas]

Cool would be to compare two rolling distros. Arch vs gentoo for example :D

[RealNC]

Cool would be to compare two rolling distros. Arch vs gentoo for example :D

If wouldn't wish Michael to go though the "Bloody Nightmare from Hell" that is the Gentoo installation procedure.... (There's this funny Chuck Norris fact that goes like "Chuck Norris is able to install Gentoo in under 2 weeks." That says it all :D)

[Apopas]

(There's this funny Chuck Norris fact that goes like "Chuck Norris is able to install Gentoo in under 2 weeks." That says it all :D)
Heh, indeed it's easier to count to infinity, as he did twice :D

[Arch64]

If wouldn't wish Michael to go though the "Bloody Nightmare from Hell" that is the Gentoo installation procedure.... (There's this funny Chuck Norris fact that goes like "Chuck Norris is able to install Gentoo in under 2 weeks." That says it all :D)

Jack Bauer can install Gentoo in 5 minutes - he can just use CTU's mainframes :p

[yoshi314]

If wouldn't wish Michael to go though the "Bloody Nightmare from Hell" that is the Gentoo installation procedure.... (There's this funny Chuck Norris fact that goes like "Chuck Norris is able to install Gentoo in under 2 weeks." That says it all :D)

i'd like to change my nick to Chuck Norris, then. i can do it in a few hours on nowadays typical dual core system bought few years ago.

if anybody thinks installing gentoo is so difficult - they should try themselves and get proven wrong. if you can read and follow instructions - it should take a day first time around.

[Ranguvar]

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=78030

I'm an Arch user... and though Arch won the majority of the benchmarks, this was not Arch vs Ubuntu. This was Linux 2.6.30 vs 2.6.28, and ext4 vs ext3.

I believe Arch _is_ faster than Ubuntu, but this speed is more in terms of boot, package management, and system "feel". Not actual application throughput.

[deanjo]

if anybody thinks installing gentoo is so difficult - they should try themselves and get proven wrong. if you can read and follow instructions - it should take a day first time around.
OK, that just sounds funny, a DAY to install an OS for minimal gains.:rolleyes:

[yoshi314]

OK, that just sounds funny, a DAY to install an OS for minimal gains.:rolleyes:
you seem to be one of the people who never got to try gentoo, judging by your opinion.

the "takes 2 weeks to install" might be true if you are running <=400mhz pc. if you have an average desktop pc, even one day is an exaggeration.

most time spent is actually not during compiles, but during configuring the system, if you are new to gentoo.

[RealNC]

you seem to be one of the people who never got to try gentoo, judging by your opinion.

the "takes 2 weeks to install" might be true if you are running <=400mhz pc. if you have an average desktop pc, even one day is an exaggeration.

most time spent is actually not during compiles, but during configuring the system, if you are new to gentoo.

My "emerge -e system && emerge -e world" takes full 24 hours on a 3.3GHz Core 2 Duo 6GB RAM. If Michael is able to cope with this, go for it.

And obviously you can't take a joke. You don't need 2 weeks to install Gentoo. It's a *joke*. It's a joke because Gentoo needs over a day to install on recent PCs. It's a long time. That's why it's funny to make jokes about it. Like "Chuck Norris needs only 2 weeks" and such. It's a JOKE.

[vince]

OK, that just sounds funny, a DAY to install an OS for minimal gains.:rolleyes:

If you like bloated os, default vendor configuration, a bitch to compile source code then you are right.

[blackiwid]

I used gentoo for years because i did like the rolling releases and that i can install most stuff with one command even if it´s commercial stuff, but it takes to much time for me. Its not just the compiling, there are conflicts file collitions, managing masking and useflag lists... its ok if you want to learn much about linux but not if you dont want to invest to much time for it all the time. As example kernel updates, even with genkernel it takes to long to get it running and booting, also sometimes the compile times stinks.

So i went to Ubuntu last years (used debian before i went to gentoo), the 6 month release-cycles are aceptable even if i use since a few months karmic ;) But there are not too much problems.


But i like to have a linux where i can install very new stuff without the possability to brack my main linus, so i installed arch linux yesterday in a kvm vm (is that redundant ^^) and I liked it, so I moved it to a lvm lv (again?) on my system-raid and made it bootable (directly outside a vm). Most stuff is very basic i think its because its a very young distribution? Most stuff is very basic and the installer just gathered lvm and mdadm support. But you have in less minutes a running system very less configuring a good wiki and no big edges so far.

I think its a good second distribution, if the gentoo devs don´t change much i will not look back. Maybe someday i try out again a saboyan or funtoo (have installed it in a chroot, but with no kernel, uses git for syncing portage that makes it 2-3x faster) but if the kernel-configuring compiling will not be made fully automated (optional) and some other things change. its not worth for me.

[FallenWizard]

I used gentoo for years because i did like the rolling releases and that i can install most stuff with one command even if it´s commercial stuff, but it takes to much time for me. Its not just the compiling, there are conflicts file collitions, managing masking and useflag lists


I rarely had conflicts in Gentoo and I was running ~ARCH.



Most stuff is very basic i think its because its a very young distribution?


No, Arch is a lot older than Ubuntu. Arch was created back in 2001.


@Phoronix
How can you make a benchmark with different kernel versions and different filesystems?

If you want to make a VALID benchmark, go test the boot speed, package management and so on although it's not possible anyway, because Arch is a rolling release distro, Ubuntu not.

[RealNC]

How is the benchmark not valid? It uses default distro settings (what most people end up using.)

[bulletxt]

Nvidia vs AMD .... when can we see this?

[AdrenalineJunky]

No, Arch is a lot older than Ubuntu. Arch was created back in 2001.


right, arch being basic is a deliberate design decision, not because they haven't implemented more yet.

thats the way its supposed to be.

[L33F3R]

If you like bloated os, default vendor configuration, a bitch to compile source code then you are right.

then the majority of linux users like the above. I am one of them. A line in the sand must be draw between what brings us our computing desires and what gets us outside.

[RealNC]

then the majority of linux users like the above.

Not necessarily true. They might actually hate the above, but have no real knowledge on how to prevent it. Arch is not usable by people who don't know anything about the CLI. Arch and Gentoo are for people who want full customization of their OS. If people don't know how to do that, they HAVE to live with the bloat.

But all things considered, "bloat" isn't really the worst of the Desktop Linux user's problems right now.

[bnolsen]

Not necessarily true. They might actually hate the above, but have no real knowledge on how to prevent it. Arch is not usable by people who don't know anything about the CLI. Arch and Gentoo are for people who want full customization of their OS.

Yup, gentoo and arch complement each other to some degree. I run gentoo on my 4 and 8 core dev systems and arch on everything else. gentoo is easier for grabbing and checking out little dev libraries and. arch's typical packages are a bit generic.

[BlackStar]

Not necessarily true. They might actually hate the above, but have no real knowledge on how to prevent it. Arch is not usable by people who don't know anything about the CLI. Arch and Gentoo are for people who want full customization of their OS. If people don't know how to do that, they HAVE to live with the bloat.

But all things considered, "bloat" isn't really the worst of the Desktop Linux user's problems right now.

Bah, I've successfully converted about 50% of my close circle of friends to Linux. All but a single one will not touch the terminal with a 10 foot pole - much less compile things from scratch!

Truth is, I don't like compiling things either. I'd rather use a well-tested, patched and precompiled Firefox package from a trusted maintainer than spend half a day compiling my own. Distros like Gentoo and Arch make the process more bearable, but it's still sub-optimal.

It's simple, really. What is a better way to spend your time: getting work done or compiling a package thousands have compiled before?

Obviously, there are many legitimate reasons to compile from source, especially if you are a developer. However, this is nothing but a tremendous waste of time for the average user - unless he's doing that as a hobby!

A quick question to Gentoo users: do you consider your Gentoo installation a hobby? I could certainly understand that: while I don't use Gentoo myself, I do use Arch and like to install & test various distros on bootable USB sticks as a hobby (time-wasting but fun!)

[yoshi314]

And obviously you can't take a joke. You don't need 2 weeks to install Gentoo. It's a *joke*. It's a joke because Gentoo needs over a day to install on recent PCs. It's a long time. That's why it's funny to make jokes about it. Like "Chuck Norris needs only 2 weeks" and such. It's a JOKE.jokes are ok for people who "get" them.

but if you tell such a thing to a person who would like to experiment with gentoo - how do you think he'll take it?

A quick question to Gentoo users: do you consider your Gentoo installation a hobby? I could certainly understand that: while I don't use Gentoo myself, I do use Arch and like to install & test various distros on bootable USB sticks as a hobby (time-wasting but fun!)gentoo is great if you want to use lots of packages built straight off svn/git/hg/etc and have package manager keep them under control.

arch linux comes close here, but gentoo's solution is more flexible. e.g. as you can enable/disable certain features in those packages without having to rewrite your packaging script. or you can reinstall those packages on a regular basis, in an automated way.

[Apopas]

A quick question to Gentoo users: do you consider your Gentoo installation a hobby? I could certainly understand that: while I don't use Gentoo myself, I do use Arch and like to install & test various distros on bootable USB sticks as a hobby (time-wasting but fun!)

I always read that gentoo needs a lot of time, it's pointless, waste of time etc. Ofcourse, these comments come always from people that didn't try gentoo seriously. So, here is my experience with gentoo:
I have a desktop pc more than 5 years old. It's 64 bit, from the first 64 bit proccessors that came to light. It's nice, I don't need something better. This pc is used by me and 3 other users of the family. So, it must always be workable and not a matter of experiments.
I installed gentoo in this system almost immediately after I bought it and guess what, I still have the same istallation with the difference it's more modern than the latest Ubuntu and Fedora. I remember back during installation I had a hard time to setup gentoo. I needed 1 whole day to make my system workable and over 3 days to bring it to the point I really liked. But that was all. I worked for three days five years ago and since then I have the most modern OS, the less bloated and the fastest one.
Now, how I keep it up to date? Each weekend I run an update. Usually, there are a dozen of packages that have updates. The proccess even if needs compilation is automated and in less than 30 minutes, while I surfing, are ready. Ofcourse there are some packages that need a lot of time to be compiled, especially in older pcs like mine. For these, there are always and binaries if you want to use, like Firefox and Openoffice. But still even Firefox needs 40 minutes to be compiled in my system. It's not so hard and it worths the time because the final binary is faster and you can choose if you like your build to support dbus or gnome or iceweasel etc. The same for Openoffice. I build it myself because I don't want it to support java. I admit it needs over 6 hours but the proccess it's again automated and I let it go during the night while I'm sleeping. I remind you though that there are always and binaries if you want to have it in a few minutes. Ok, you can still say that you spend some time each weekend for these things. Well, is not really more than the time someone needs to update his Ubuntu from 8.10 to 9.04 and then the occasianl updates he does.
Also, the people usually have the missconception that the benefit of gentoo is to be fast because you can optimize it during compilation. While this can be true, is not the great advantage of the distro. The real benefit is the so called flags, with which you can choose what options the packages you build you want to support. For example, you choose if you want, beagle or tracker or xmp or doc or even gnome support in your nautilus. And you don't have to do this all the time, you can choose these options in a config file were they are stored permanently. This reduce the bloat to minimum and finally you have the applications you really need in your system.
So the conclusion is:
gentoo is for the mature Linux user ofcourse and while you can not jump to your friend's home and install it in a matter of minutes it has other really important benefits. It's installation is a real trouble but you do it once and for all and after that you really relax and you have one of the best things the Linux OS has to offer. Fast, simple, always modern and greatly customizable.

[yoshi314]

yeah, i think the biggest myth about gentoo is that your computer is "locked" or unusable when package manager builds the software. which is untrue.

the most silently omitted advantage of source based distribution is that by building eveything on user's machine, it works around a lot of problems with binary redistribution of certain packages (e.g. dvdcss support, mozilla branded software, IDEA algorithm, various patented multimedia codecs).

while most distributions provide those features in external repositories, gentoo can have them in the main package tree and leave their activation to the user.

[BlackStar]

yeah, i think the biggest myth about gentoo is that your computer is "locked" or unusable when package manager builds the software. which is untrue.

the most silently omitted advantage of source based distribution is that by building eveything on user's machine, it works around a lot of problems with binary redistribution of certain packages (e.g. dvdcss support, mozilla branded software, IDEA algorithm, various patented multimedia codecs).

while most distributions provide those features in external repositories, gentoo can have them in the main package tree and leave their activation to the user.

I fail to see the distinction. It doesn't make any difference whether they are in a repo called "extras" or "main" - the user has to activate the software manually in both cases.

[nanonyme]

I have a desktop pc more than 5 years old. It's 64 bit, from the first 64 bit proccessors that came to light. It's nice, I don't need something better. That's actually imo the best part of Gentoo. It's very far customizable and you don't end up collecting garbage over time if you pay attention to what you're doing. (compare hard dependencies vs USE-flag-controlled dependencies) Even though I don't currently bother keeping one such a system, it's imo the most pro-choice distro I've tried.
If you want to disable enabled-by-default stuff in binary distros, you end up compiling loads of the userland there too so programs won't end up being linked against stuff you don't want them to. (so you can safely remove the "dependencies") And binary distro environments usually aren't really designed for that to be trivial. Gentoo is.

[BlackStar]

That's actually imo the best part of Gentoo. It's very far customizable and you don't end up collecting garbage over time if you pay attention to what you're doing. (compare hard dependencies vs USE-flag-controlled dependencies) Even though I don't currently bother keeping one such a system, it's imo the most pro-choice distro I've tried.
If you want to disable enabled-by-default stuff in binary distros, you end up compiling loads of the userland there too so programs won't end up being linked against stuff you don't want them to. (so you can safely remove the "dependencies") And binary distro environments usually aren't really designed for that to be trivial. Gentoo is.

This is a matter of distro design, not a difference between binary and source distros. Arch is binary distro that behaves exactly like Gentoo in this regard. Nothing is enabled by default unless *you* enable it, and it's trivial to disable stuff you don't want anymore.

[RealNC]

To the question of whether I consider Gentoo as a hobby, I'd say yes. Though it only became a hobby after I used it for a while. I was on SuSE Linux and later openSUSE before I came to Gentoo. Those didn't offer any incentives to become my hobby :D Gentoo offered so many tweaking possibilities that at some point I was simply interested in them. Then I ended up fixing bugs and write new ebuilds and submit them to Gentoo and/or upstream. So I guess this makes it a hobby because it's kinda fun.

Edit:
I never submitted any patches to SuSE/openSUSE. Ever. And I did find bug there too, but the work needed to even attempt to fix them was boring, so I never really felt like doing it.

[Apopas]

This is a matter of distro design, not a difference between binary and source distros. Arch is binary distro that behaves exactly like Gentoo in this regard. Nothing is enabled by default unless *you* enable it, and it's trivial to disable stuff you don't want anymore.
Mplayer in gentoo has these options you can enable or disable:
3dnow X a52 aac aalib alsa ass cddb cdio dirac directfb dts dv dvd dvdnav enca encode esd faac faad fbcon ggi gif iconv jpeg libcaca live mad mmx
mng mp2 mp3 network openal opengl osdmenu oss png quicktime rar real rtc schroedinger sdl shm speex sse sse2 theora tremor truetype unicode vdpau
vorbis x264 xscreensaver xv xvid 3dnowext (-altivec) bidi bindist bl cdparanoia cpudetection custom-cflags custom-cpuopts debug dga doc dvb dxr3 ftp gmplayer ipv6 jack joystick ladspa lirc lzo md5sum mmxext nas nut opencore amr% pnm pulseaudio pvr radio samba ssse3 (-svga) teletext tga v4l v4l2 (-vidix) (-win32codecs) xanim
xinerama xvmc zoran (-nemesi%*)" VIDEO_CARDS="mga nvidia vesa s3virge tdfx"
so if I only have xvid videos in my disk I can tell to gentoo to build MPlayer with only xvid, alsa and nvidia support. Thus no other depedencies will be ever built. How do I enable/disable these features in Arch?

[BlackStar]

Mplayer in gentoo has these options you can enable or disable:
3dnow X a52 aac aalib alsa ass cddb cdio dirac directfb dts dv dvd dvdnav enca encode esd faac faad fbcon ggi gif iconv jpeg libcaca live mad mmx
mng mp2 mp3 network openal opengl osdmenu oss png quicktime rar real rtc schroedinger sdl shm speex sse sse2 theora tremor truetype unicode vdpau
vorbis x264 xscreensaver xv xvid 3dnowext (-altivec) bidi bindist bl cdparanoia cpudetection custom-cflags custom-cpuopts debug dga doc dvb dxr3 ftp gmplayer ipv6 jack joystick ladspa lirc lzo md5sum mmxext nas nut opencore amr% pnm pulseaudio pvr radio samba ssse3 (-svga) teletext tga v4l v4l2 (-vidix) (-win32codecs) xanim
xinerama xvmc zoran (-nemesi%*)" VIDEO_CARDS="mga nvidia vesa s3virge tdfx"
so if I only have xvid videos in my disk I can tell to gentoo to build MPlayer with only xvid, alsa and nvidia support. Thus no other depedencies will be ever built. How do I enable/disable these features in Arch?

You'd use the Arch Build System (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS_-_The_Arch_Build_System) to trivially modify build options. Of course, chances are someone has already created the build script you want (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22231).

[nanonyme]

I wish they'd start compiling programs with directfb support in binary distros too nowadays that KMS is coming...
Edit: Oh, crap. It can apparently use fbdev anyway.

[yoshi314]

You'd use the Arch Build System (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS_-_The_Arch_Build_System) to trivially modify build options. Of course, chances are someone has already created the build script you want (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22231).

in case of complex packages (like mplayer) things are not so trivial.

e.g. you want enable some new feature in mplayer, you have to

1. add/change --enable- or --with- configure flag in the PKGBUILD.
2. try building
3. install missing dependencies, fix up the pkgbuild to include these dependencies
4. try building again
5. if there are missing dependencies, go back to 3, or fix the sources, in case of build error.
6. in case you get stuck - wait for someone else who'll do it, or give it up.
7. success

in case of gentoo, you have to change one environment variable, and that's pretty much it. changing it alters dependencies, and the package manager takes care of it.

most well-written ebuilds cover all possible build option combinations for their package. (mplayer ebuild probably covers 95% of configure combinations).

also ebuilds can require their dependencies to be built with certain features enabled or disabled. e.g. amarok2 requires that mysql is built with "embedded" feature. you just cannot do that in archlinux.



the problem with arch linux ABS is - PKGBUILDS are static scripts. sometimes changing them involves a lot of work. gentoo ebuilds are more flexible in this regard - you need to alter the USE variable to make them build software with different set of features.

[Apopas]

You'd use the Arch Build System (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS_-_The_Arch_Build_System) to trivially modify build options. Of course, chances are someone has already created the build script you want (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22231).
But now we enter again in the world of source where compilation takes place. So if you are gonna do this you understand why someone choosed gentoo which masters in things which have to do with compile and solve depedencies.