LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 07-23-2008, 04:00 PM   #1
nuxrl
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: NY, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Arch
Posts: 176

Rep: Reputation: 35
Why Slackware runs fast?


We've heard a lot that Slackware runs faster than most other Linux distros. My personal experience (not benchmarked) also backs this statement. Slackware and Slackware-based distros (Vector, Wolvix, Zenwalk, ...) usually run very fast. I am trying to understand the reason. Slackware doesn't tweak the kernel. It doesn't use aggressive optimization options to build its packages. I know it uses BSD style startup scripts and doesn't turn on too many services in /etc/rc.d by default. This may speed up the system boot process but doesn't make programs run faster in the system. The file directory structure in Slack is not significantly different from other distros'.

If Slack really runs faster than others, what are the reasons?
 
Old 07-23-2008, 04:27 PM   #2
Takla
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 188

Rep: Reputation: 33
It has a special hidden directory where all the magic happens

/.placebo

 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 07-23-2008, 04:47 PM   #3
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
Personally, I believe it to be from minimal source code patching. Go look at Fedora Rawhide and you'll shutter. upwards to 20 patches on some packages. BTW, Debian does it too.

I have nothing to back that assumption up, but am not sure what else to attribute it to. My DIY build runs just as fast. Something to be said for Vanilla Linux I think.

Last edited by jong357; 07-23-2008 at 06:39 PM.
 
Old 07-23-2008, 07:56 PM   #4
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 304

Rep: Reputation: 66
Maybe because it gets in your way less.
 
Old 07-24-2008, 02:31 AM   #5
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,727

Rep: Reputation: 452Reputation: 452Reputation: 452Reputation: 452Reputation: 452
"doesn't turn on too many services" is the main reason, I believe.
 
Old 07-24-2008, 07:21 AM   #6
owenjh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Distribution: Fedora / Slackware
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 15
Slackware does run faster than many distributions on a base install. I have tweaked a Slackware system to boot on old hardware in 30 seconds.

Slackware does not have as many services turned on by default which is one reason. You also do not get a lot of packages (unless you select the full) option that you don't need. I'm not sure the effect of this on boot time but it can definitely slow your computer down at runtime.

Getting benchmarks of different OS's was on my list of stuff todo, just haven't got around to doing it yet.
 
Old 07-24-2008, 07:58 AM   #7
monsm
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: London, UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 568

Rep: Reputation: 37
Cool

Pure and utter magic, I'd say. Almost as good as Gentoo

Mons
 
Old 07-24-2008, 08:35 AM   #8
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,231

Rep: Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828
Not using SELinux, GRSecurity or AppArmor probably doesn't hurt much either. All those additional authorisation checks don't come for free, though for the most part I doubt the lost clock cycles would be noticeable to a human.

My primary system (4 year old, Pentium 4 3.0Ghz Hyperthreading) just died on me. I'm typing this on an old Dell XPS B Series, P3-800 which I've resurrected to tide me over. I get the feeling it will continue to run forever if I let it. <OLD FART MODE>"They don't build 'em like this anymore, sonny!". It has 128mb of ram and a 32Mb GeForce 256 card. I'm running slack 12.1 (X but no KDE) and even on an encrypted LVM setup its surprisingly usable for a machine of its vintage. Memory is a bit on the tight side, but otherwise it makes me wonder if its actually worth replacing my P4 at all. It runs a damn sight cooler than my P4 too.


To be honest though, I can't say I've ever noticed a speed difference between Slackware and any of the other distros I've tried: though I've never been a fan of the full-fat desktop environments such as KDE and GNOME, which may go some way to explaining that.
 
Old 07-24-2008, 09:32 AM   #9
granth
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: USA
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 209

Rep: Reputation: 38
I have an old HP Vectra workstation: P3 733mhz, 512mb RAMBUS (lol).

Any recent Fedora release is absolutely unbearable to use. However, Slackware seems to run ok, even using KDE. I would even say that it "seems" faster than my brother's P4 with Ubuntu installed.

simple = fast
 
Old 07-24-2008, 10:51 AM   #10
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,231

Rep: Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828
My P800 is RAMBUS too Granth. Unfortunately only 128MB (though back in those days, that was a lot of RAM... hehe) and getting any extra for it these days is probably not a viable option.

I was just casting a tentative eye over the Dell Precision Workstation range. XPSes have gotten a little too tricked-up for my liking these days. All those colour changing LED light strips and what have you on the front may make the kids go 'Woah!... Cooooooool", but they don't do anything for me.
 
Old 07-24-2008, 06:28 PM   #11
alisonken1
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: 9
Slackware doesn't try to coddle you or save you from yourself.

Eye candy (unless using accelerated hardware) wastes cycles better spent on doing work.

Protecting you from yourself means limiting options and wasting cycles on stuff that should not be needed for someone trying to learn, or for serious admins, gets in your way.

By keeping it simple, it's easier to setup and easier to maintain. Since you don't have extra cruft getting in the way, a byproduct is also extra cycles for getting work done as well as an excellent working example that lets you play (even if it means getting yourself in trouble, like 'rm -rf /').

Last edited by alisonken1; 07-24-2008 at 06:29 PM. Reason: typos
 
Old 07-24-2008, 06:46 PM   #12
Franklin
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2002
Distribution: Slackware, WinXP, Windows 7
Posts: 1,253

Rep: Reputation: 55
Honestly, I blame Gnome and all the added crap a typical Gnome install adds. Dumping it was the best thing Pat ever did. I've installed GSB and while that still runs faster than Gnome on other distros, it added way too many useless (IMO) daemons and services. Pare it down to an acceptable level and it fails to run correctly. It runs sluggish under X as well.

When you consider that Gnome is the default DE for Ubuntu, Debian, and Suse (I think), and is installed on many more Distros (even if it isn't the default DE) then maybe there's a connection?

Eh, what do I know ...

 
Old 07-25-2008, 11:30 AM   #13
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
So your saying that Slackware didn't become fast until gnome-2.6 was dropped?
 
Old 07-25-2008, 11:46 AM   #14
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,013

Rep: Reputation: 477Reputation: 477Reputation: 477Reputation: 477Reputation: 477
Slackware doesn't load a lot of extra services on boot-up, less system overhead, so it runs quite fast:-) Slackware is a lean, durable, secure OS.
Slackware 12.1 with XFce 4.4.2 runs smooth as silk on my main work station, an IBM Celeron 850 MHz, with 768 MB RAM. Slackware 12.1 also runs very well indeed on my IBM Plll 667 Mhz, with 256 MB RAM.
 
Old 07-25-2008, 12:29 PM   #15
Takla
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 188

Rep: Reputation: 33
I think it's just about what services are enabled, there's no magic to it. Recently I tried Arch and of course it seems very fast at first because it's minimal. Once you add the same services and use the same applications as in another distro there's no appreciable difference. There are distros like the Suse ones which use their own tools, services and structure and might not be capable of performing as well but I'd guess any distro that is based on traditional commonly used tools can be made to perform pretty much the same. It's really a question of building on a minimal base vs removing from a more comprehensive default set-up.

I listened to a podcast recently where the authors, a Debian user and a Gentoo user, tested Ubuntu Hardy. They found no appreciable difference in performance between Ubuntu and Gentoo using geekbench testing tools except Ubuntu has a bigger RAM footprint, which might be explained by the use of prelinking/readahead. I've recently tested for my own interest Debian Lenny, Arch, Ubuntu Hardy, gNewSense and once they're configured with the same kernel, services and desktop environments (as far as is possible) I found the same thing. The only real variables seem to be boot time and memory footprint which I'm inclined to think is the result of different start up scripts and prelinking.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UT 99 Goty runs too fast.... vbisis Linux - Games 21 04-10-2008 10:03 AM
Quake 3 runs TOO fast wick0r Linux - Games 15 02-21-2006 10:11 AM
linux time runs fast d0ggi3 Linux - Software 2 02-13-2006 12:18 PM
Shogo MAD runs kinda too fast Dr. Device Linux - Games 1 10-12-2005 08:04 PM
ntp hell: System clock runs twice as fast as it should do jimieee Linux - Software 0 01-23-2004 05:17 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration