I tried a lot of distributions and I think Debian is really good, but it is i386 optimized so I recompile the kernel with i686 optimization and now my machine is faster, so I was wondering:

- How faster could be my Debian if it could run i686 optimized packages? It would be noticeably
faster? If it is I could recompile step by step all packages but it will take me really much time
because I have an old laptop and I can't type "apt-build world" in this way I risk to "fry" it.

- Suppose that I could install on the same machine a Debian with kernel and packages optimized i686
and a Gentoo compiled from scratch with medium optimization cause a strong optimization could
destabilize the system; Do you think they perform in the same way and if you don't think so where is
the difference?, anyway I can't install a Gentoo from scratch.

- I tried Arch linux cause it's i686 optimized and I don't have to spend days in compiling.
Do you think Gentoo could be faster than Arch, if so why?

P.S. However I think Debian is really good if only there was a release for i686 it would be sure the best than ever.

Thanks by

deadlinx

You will not notice any difference between a i386 and a i686 system, as the difference is typically in milliseconds.

If you want to speed up your PC, the things you need to do is optimize the hard-disk (using hdparm) and prelink the libraries (using prelink).

Ahh! Double post. any way I posted this in your other post but since one of these is bound to get deleted I'll put it here too.

With gentoo you can optimize not just for i686 but for something much more specific like a P4 with mmx, mmx2, sse & sse2 extentions. you won't get any problems aslong as you dont set the optimization above -O2. Sure none of the applications on your computer will run on anything thats not exactly the same but who cares. I notice a substantial speed increase with gentoo over SuSE. A Stage3 install isn't actualy that dificult especialy if you already have a working linux install on the same computer. I could try to talk you through it if you'd like. What is in your computer Hardware wise?

Hi,


sorry johnson_steve, I've posted double for reading experiences of Debian and Arch users.
I've to say your post is the most detailed I received, last question: the comparison you made among SuSE and Gentoo I think compare a SuSE (with a kernel optimised for i686 and packages i386 optimised) and a Gentoo stage 3 but I'm not sure, have I right understood?

Thank you by

deadlinx

Usually with modern processors, you really don't notice much difference between optimized packages and unoptimized ones.

It's not worth the trouble compiling everything from source. It becomes a pain after some time.

I agree 100%.
With an optimized kernel you will save, what ? 1 MB RAM ? On modern, powerful computers, spending hours to tweak is just a nonsense.
(However it does help to use lightweigt apps).

++

It was a novelty to compile apps for your own system in the beginning, but the time spent compiling far exceeds the time I spend using Gentoo, so it doesn't make sense that way.

Also the size of the source code download isn't much smaller than the binary: in some cases the source code is actually bigger than downloading binary packages.

Hi,

Surely I don't want to abandon my friend Debian, Sarge has its own partition.
My intention is to improve my experience in using GNU/Linux and I like to try the fastest stable distro that my "hot" laptop allows me to install on another partition.

Tomorrow I'll delete the Arch partition to try Gentoo stage 3 with optimisation level -O2, if there will be no remarkable differences in performance, as I think, I reinstalled Arch or I'll only use Debian, at this moment I don't know.

Sincerely

deadlinx

"I tried lots of distributions and I think Debian is really good, but it is i386 optimized so I recompile the kernel with i686 optimization and now my machine is faster"

All you had to do was:

# apt-get -y install kernel-image-your choice-686

ecco, é pronto!

Read the sticky at the top of the page about the post-installation configuration. In it, you'll find a section written by Gunnix and the page url on how to optimize old slow boxes, (comment all ttys except 2 in /etc/inittab), use a window manager instead of Gnome and KDE, plus other common sense advice. Use light apps such as xfe, xchat, opera, ee, icewm, aterm, fluxbox, etc.
Do a minimal install and only install the packages you need with apt-get.

Howto install Sarge
http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/..._installer_rc2

IceWM Tips
http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/...dia/IceWM_Tips

It's a long read but considerably less time than compiling.
A 'df -h' shows i'm using 689 MB of space only, and that includes OOo!

Read, read, read, that's what it's there for.

PD: i use a PII 266 with 128 MB RAM, it flies.

It was suse striped down initscripts and a home rolled kernel and kde 3.3. The thing I like best about gentoo is not the speed however. I actually find it much simpler to use and maintain (once it's installed). oh and I can't live without portage (seriously I use gentoo portage with OSX Tiger on my iBook). I would also recommend xfce, my desktop has more eyecandy now and only uses like 0.3% cpu. what kind of computer are we talking about? does it have any other OS on it?

Edit:
forgot to mention I usualy compile while I sleep or work but with portage niceness set to 6 I can can have an emerge --update world running while I play vice city.

Hi,

I've read macondo advises me to get a new optimised kernel via apt-get and both macondo and johnson_steve advise me to use a window manager insted of a desktop environment.

About the kernel: I've a kernel optimised i686 yet, I've not obtained it via apt-get because I have to use experimental functions such as the suspend to disk one.

About the W.M. I'm not using a desktop environment because both KDE and Gnome are "heavy" in my opinion anyway if I've to say my opinion I think KDE is 10 steps ahead Gnome.
In effect I never written about my W.M. preferences: I've used Window maker but now I'm using Enlightenment stable.

About johnson_steve's post in the Arch list:

ok I've read it, I'll only post here.
Now I'll print the Gentoo handbook and I'll install it anyway if I'll have a problem (and I think so) I'll post it but I don't want to disturb till I can do on my own.

Thank you,

deadlinx

You might also look into tools like apt-build.
Xfce is another light-weight desktop environment.

Hi,

lpd advises me to look apt-build,
I've read about apt-build and I'm not sure it is a good idea because it has not a mature code yet (bugzzzz) and because I don't know how does it take me to recompile all packages, in fact recompiling only a part of the system is not so useful and Arch (completely i686 optimised) will always be faster.

On the other hand I could recompile packages in many times because my laptop can't work too much hours (it overheats after 4 hours working - Pentium 4 aboard :-(( ) but in this case I'll spend such time of a Gentoo instation for obtaining a system that has the same performances than Arch but only close to a Gentoo one:

if my laptop "allows me" to spend much time in installing Linux I use Debian "as is" and I install Gentoo in another partition.

Sincerely,

deadlinx

P.S. I want to thank lpd for the post, it was my fault: I haven't cleared my opinion on apt-build yet.

Just consider whether it's really going to be worth your while building i686 specific packages. I hardly notice any difference between compiling my own specific packages in Gentoo or using prebuilt binaries in Debian.

Your kidding right, if people actualy did that there would be no trees left. I usualy just have it open on virtual console 2 in nano so I can check it while I Install. if you have a desktop you can set it up so it does most of the compiling for the laptop, and gentoo actualy has precompiled packages that you can install instead.