Slackware's performance is poor compared to other "big" Linux distribution
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Slackware's performance is poor compared to other "big" Linux distribution
Hi,
I just read an article[1] from phoronix about performance comparison on several larger Linux distribution and I'm really surprise to see the result that Slackware performs "bad" compared to the other distro. What do you think guys?
I think that if you want to truly understand the results you have to find out which kernel and what user land SW versions are used, which patches were applied (if any) and what the effect of those is on performance.
I'd be interested to see benchmarks with standardized kernels. There was a regression present in 3.2.23 as seen here, but I'm not sure if it affected performance or just reporting. These tests also do nothing to determine the possible cause of lacking performance which is unfortunate. The table of information on page 1 is also inconsistent with testing on the same hardware, so I'm not sure what to make of the tests. It should be noted that it is very poor form, and certainly bad journalism, to compare a pre-release version of Slackware with fully released distros, though I'm not sure whether or not there would be a difference now (at least the kernel version has been bumped in Slackware). See this thread.
All I have to say about the benchmarks: they don't matter to me. I have tried multiple distros on my machines and I feel that Slack runs the fastest (and most stable). I know its subjective, but that's my test.
seems like failed attempt to troll against slackware
Forget the benchmarking results and such comments like "oddly disappointing," because it is really splitting hairs for the most part. The take-away is that slackware is there, and it's a popular distro! Slackware didn't seem so popular a few years ago and would not get mentioned often, but it's popularity has appeared to pick up. More and more people have gone through the undecided phase of trying many distros, but come back to slackware later. The slackware "KISS" approach, keeping slackware-specific scripts and tools simple, allows the user to feel that slackware is their own distro that is easy to reconfigure, fix, and feel confident to use.
I'm suspicious of measuring technology on performance only. Often, gains in performance come by cutting corners on proper sanity/error checking and using other less-safe modes of operation. Maybe slackware compiles with less compiler optimization or assumes a more basic CPU feature set than some other distros? In the end, a little lower performance can sometimes mean better compatibility and stability. This is my opinion, not intended to start a big debate on this.
I'm guessing the writer/tester did not read CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT and was probably using the huge kernel. Other little post-install actions may also have been left out.
There's a lot of variations in the DE/WMs that was not considered.
Additionally, I could care less how those tests run on an i7 Core proc w/ 8GB RAM. I'd like to see the results on a P4 w/ 1GB RAM because that's basically the ballpark of what I typically use currently. I guarantee Ubuntu, CentOS, and Fedora with Unity/GNOME would not fair quite as well!
I think it is just another meaningless test. Not any huge differences that one would see during normal use. It's certainly not going to convince me to switch to a "faster" distribution. Slackware is fast in my book that's all that matters.
It's probable that the version of Slackware used there was hit by some of sort regression in the kernel, and let's not forget the "i486" thing (although it shouldn't make that much of a difference). Still, it doesn't imply anything about stability and those differences are not things that once can notice during normal desktop use anyway.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.