Slackware's performance is poor compared to other "big" Linux distribution
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
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.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
After some research I can confirm that slackware was the only distribution running a 3.x kernel at that time.
(Not sure about arch). What I think being the biggest mistake of this test is testing a beta distribution along with stable distributions, they could take 13.37 and get the same result for every distribution since imho there is no such thing as a "benchmark distribution". They could test different kernels on the same distribution and get the same result they got in this "distribution test"
I don't trust phoronix at all, I don't go there anymore because of the ridiculous benchmarks they do. They're not even benchmarks, they are nonsense drivel.
I will likely do a proper benchmark of Arch and Slackware 14. However, it's not that useful because it isn't the distro that is fast or slow, it's the software and the kernel. Still, I would like to see if there is a huge difference between the two, even tho there is no chance that I will switch to Arch.
Until recently, my neighbor here in my little South French village drove a Suzuki 1100 GSX-R motorbike. He's been bragging quite a lot about the incredible acceleration, top speed, and so on. Yet I saw him spend most of the time repairing his bike, because there was always something that had to be fixed. At the same time, my own 750cc BMW motorbike - the same model than the one from the French police force - doesn't have much to brag about. It's reasonably fast, reasonably comfortable for me and my girlfriend, I drive it all year in summer and in winter, and it takes me everywhere across the country, and sometimes even to Switzerland, to Italy, to Austria or Hungary. It just works, without much fuzz.
A few weeks ago, my neighbor was sick of his Suzuki and traded it for the exact same 750cc BMW that I have.
For motorbikes as for computer systems, the real benchmark test is not "How fast does it go?" but "How far can I go with it?"
According to the link the OP posted:
A dubious benchmark was done on different hardware with a 64GD SSD that noone is using for real work, comparing an unreleased version of Slackware, a "harder to do" default configuration of Arch and Fedora, CentOS and Ubuntu with "stock/default configuration as much as possible" "to largely appease the Phoronix readers"...
Which actually can be read "I have to deliver that article for Phoronix, but I have no material... what can I do... wait! I have an idea! ..."
I recently cancelled my RSS subscription for Phoronix because of the serious decline of the articles' quality. I don't trust benchmarks from them at all, you can see the quality from that article alone in the listing of the configuration (Arch Linux with no desktop, X and OpenGL listed, Disk Details only listed for Ubuntu, Processor details missing for Slackware) and the diagrams (Arch missing in the BYTE benchmark).
This benchmark is simply useless.
I have used every version of Ubuntu since the inaugural 4.10. I have been using Slackware since version 11.0.
In my experience, Slackware has always run faster and used fewer resources than Ubuntu, especially when using XFCE on Slackware.
I checked out the chart, looks to me the systems used have some minor differences (memory config different, GPU ...). But what I am really curious about are the compiler details. I am far from a 'benchmark person', but wouldn't you want to run the same statically linked binary across all Linux systems ?