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, but I wanted more so I
tried Arch linux because of its i686 optimization and bacuse I don't have to spend days in compiling.

- Suppose that I could install on the same machine Arch (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?
Is it a noticeably difference in speed or not?
Anyway I can't install a Gentoo from scratch.


P.S. I noticed that Arch 0.7 has a better installation procedure than Arch 0.7.1 rc2, in fact this one
gave me some problems with the installation of both bootloaders (LILO & GRUB).
Arch 0.7 installed with no problems.


Thanks by

deadlinx

i've got grave doubts about i686 optimisation - if it really made that much difference loads of distros would do it.

i've seen people say that arch is not faster than slackware.

therefore not faster than gentoo.

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?

Well gentoo would win in performance. Its just faster than Arch. But its a close race.

Gentoo also has the powerfull 'USE flags' option which I like alot, this feature is still missing in Arch. Pros and cons...never ends, but you will find USE flags very powerfull when you get to learn it

And offcourse:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/...Arch_vs_Gentoo

Have fun finding the right distribution.

Sincerely, Jørgen

Hi,

I've read yesterday the link Jørgen posted but I think your opinions (Jørgen's and johnson_steve's) are very useful for clearing my doubts, in addiction both replies are very quick, you are better than Gentoo :-)

No-one would be able to tell the difference in everyday usage.
I use Gentoo on my home system where I need all the optimization I can get. I use Arch on laptops because it's quick, and fast to install.
Don't understand the installer problem - I used a 0.7.1 CD (because of the inbuilt udev)the other day on a new install, and it went fine.
I suspect the reason is that all those distros are concerned about impacting users on hardware that doesn't meet the criteria. Building for 686 is safe if the hardware is current.

I don't think Gentoo is much faster than Arch. Compile flags for any hardware above i686, is mostly just multimedia instructions. So program execution isn't a big factor there.

Besides that Gentoos packages have to be compiled (for the most part) and that takes up way too much time as far as i'm concerned. If you want additional speed (i don't think the distro really matters here), you should slim down your system with a lighter wm, and get rid of kdm,gdm,etc., and go through the init scripts and such. Arch's init scripts are awesome, and gentoos are fairly popular as well.

When it comes down to it...its just a matter of preference. Slackware is considered one of the fastest distros, and i think it is, although it is compiled for an i386, so don't let that factor trick you.

Actually, Slackware is compiled for i486, and optimised for i686. Arch is noticably faster than Slack (which is already pretty nippy), but not by much for most things. Gentoo is potentially faster than either, but again not by that much, and not necessarily at all unless you know what you're doing with the optimisations.

You'll find any of them faster than Debian, though.

Hi,

I've read your useful experiences and now I'm interested in seeing Gentoo stage 3 performances with optimisation level -O2; a new adventure wait me tomorrow anyway I think in the end I'll probably continue to use my Underground-Arch and Debian stable but I want to make an experiment with Gentoo.

P.S. I use Underground because it has more recent software than the last Arch release but there is the only difference.

Sincerely deadlinx

I'm only going to post on you dup. post in the debian forum.

I've been playing with Gentoo o a 1ghz t-bird. Its pretty neat, emerge is a great idea. However, I don't have time to go through these compiles, sheesh. 10-15 minutes just for vi, or 30+ minutes for ndiswrapper. I shutter to think about the waits I'll go through once I'm ready to have more than vi, grep, and lspci installed ...

X will be an experience then, as will a DE - kick it off and go to bed.

Yeah, I played an entire game of NHL '04 while waiting for kde to compile. If you ask me it just isn't worth it.

And if ou really want to optimize packages you can just use abs/makepkg in Arch to build everything and then install them.

the speed increase you'll see from [pick a distro] to arch is most likely because arch is a slim distro, and it's quite simple.

You got that right

Im currently compiling xorg & kde on a 2005.1 install. I think its taking approximately 7 hours or so. Well it gives me time to read some the docs for gentoo, new release has alot of usefull info...69 pages...nice

The fastest OS I ever ran is FreeBSD hands down. And I have gentoo among others installed!