Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arch-based Antergos Refreshed, Installer Overhaul

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arch-based Antergos Refreshed, Installer Overhaul

    Phoronix: Arch-based Antergos Refreshed, Installer Overhaul

    The rolling-release, Arch-based Antergos Linux distribution has refreshed their ISO images with their 2015.08.18 update. Besides the latest packages, the Antergos Cnchi installer has seen some significant updates...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Excellent. Their installer has always been easy to use, but the downloading process often managed to fail somehow (faulty mirrors probably), so I had to try 2 or 3 times before it actually worked. Hopefully I can now recommend my favorite Linux distro to others.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by halo9en View Post
      Excellent. Their installer has always been easy to use, but the downloading process often managed to fail somehow (faulty mirrors probably), so I had to try 2 or 3 times before it actually worked. Hopefully I can now recommend my favorite Linux distro to others.
      I think that's a bad idea, especially if they are using Laptops!
      Like Arch, Antergos uses a (soft) real-time Linux kernel by default, so battery life & multi-threading performance is going to suffer compared to sane distros like Ubuntu or Fedora.
      Just sayin', You should at least also mention that when recommending Antergos to other people...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post

        I think that's a bad idea, especially if they are using Laptops!
        Like Arch, Antergos uses a (soft) real-time Linux kernel by default, so battery life & multi-threading performance is going to suffer compared to sane distros like Ubuntu or Fedora.
        Just sayin', You should at least also mention that when recommending Antergos to other people...
        Can you expand on what you mean by (soft) real-time and why that's bad for laptops/multi-threading etc, and what are the benefits then? Or give me directions to find the information myself?

        Thanks

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by forgiver View Post

          Can you expand on what you mean by (soft) real-time and why that's bad for laptops/multi-threading etc, and what are the benefits then? Or give me directions to find the information myself?

          Thanks
          Type 'uname -a' into a terminal and see if You can find "PREEMPT" there. if positive, that means Your Linux kernel will preempt (think of it like freezing) itself to allow other tasks (like interrupts from hardware or user-space apps) to complete THEORATICALLY faster. Only problem with that is of course that all the rest of the system has to suffer for it, which makes sense, since there is no free lunch. This especially becomes noticable when You look at the frame-latency during games.

          Some links of interest:

          http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~cking/low-...el/results.txt
          (Look at the game benchmark, where generic kernel has LOWER latency than "low-latency" [PREEMPT] kernel)

          http://askubuntu.com/questions/61423...to-low-latency
          (Explaining it much better than I possibly could... especially this part):
          "Also, while fast, the actual latency with a low latency kernel is more variable, the latency is not constant. With a standard kernel, the latency, although longer, the latency is more constant. It is sometimes easier to compensate for a longer, but predictable latency then a faster by unpredictable latency. One can never make the latency 0 For these reasons most people are going with a standard kernel. Most peole can not detect the difference between 1 ms and 1.1 ms "
          (Hence the varied frame-latency for games...)

          Last edited by Linuxxx; 19 August 2015, 06:07 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            so which kernel is bad for who??

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by horizonbrave View Post
              so which kernel is bad for who??
              In my experience, a low-latency kernel is meant for things like music production where you want as little latency and jitter as possible when dealing with synths and recording. As mentioned above, gaming can suffer under a low latency kernel, so it's not always the best choice for a Linux gaming system.

              The great thing about Linux, of course, is you can always switch kernels whenever you want. If you want the plain vanilla kernel directly from git, you can build it for your system. If that last sentence was complete technobabble to you, I'd suggest sticking with Ubuntu. ;-)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kaidenshi View Post

                In my experience, a low-latency kernel is meant for things like music production where you want as little latency and jitter as possible when dealing with synths and recording. As mentioned above, gaming can suffer under a low latency kernel, so it's not always the best choice for a Linux gaming system.

                The great thing about Linux, of course, is you can always switch kernels whenever you want. If you want the plain vanilla kernel directly from git, you can build it for your system. If that last sentence was complete technobabble to you, I'd suggest sticking with Ubuntu. ;-)
                I would suggest that even for music production a low-latency kernel is not a necessity anymore. To quote from the linuxaudio.org wiki:
                "Kernels >= 2.6.31 seem to work pretty good without RT patch, also for real-time pro audio usage. It's not strictly necessary anymore to install a real-time ('rt') kernel to get good results."

                Also if a low-latency kernel would be any good for gaming, then surely enough Valve would have used one on SteamOS, but alas, they too are relying on a generic Linux kernel to power all their gaming needs (where it is all about the smoothness of the frames, not some absurdly high FPS number).
                Vulkan should help greatly in this regard compared to OpenGL, since tests under Windows already show that Mantle/DirectX 12 has much better frame-latency when compared with DirectX/Direct3D 11.
                Last edited by Linuxxx; 20 August 2015, 08:23 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X