ubuntu/kubuntu is sloooooooow!
abuse at hausundhof.com
Wed Aug 15 15:29:38 UTC 2007
Joel Goguen schrieb:
> If you aren't sure if they're the same version, how do you know there
> aren't enhancements made in the ArchLinux version? Maybe there's
Possible, but maybe it would be a good idea to port those enhancements
to Ubuntu if there exists and if it would be possible.
But i don't think that there are enhancements because nearly every
program seems to be faster (at least at startup). Firefox for example
seems to be a complete other program on the ArchLinux machine, which was
really a suprise for me.
> processes not running on Arch that free up additional resources. Has
> he prelinked and you haven't? How much RAM does he have? how much do
The RAM is the same, swap is available but not in use. The setup is
nearly the distribution default on both machines. There are just some
Webservices running on both machines (on the ArchLinux one there is also
a Zope instance that wasn't running on the Ubuntu machine).
I don't know if there are prelinked software on the ArchLinux machine,
but if this isn't possible by default in this distro i don't think so.
> you have? How much RAM do you each have used? How much swap do you
> each have? How much is used? What are your load averages? Without
Load averages are nearly the same.
> all of that to start with, the only responses you should expect are to
> be told that Ubuntu has more included and so of course it's a little
> slower, or to be told that you can't do anything approaching a valid
> comparison unless your environment is identical (same filesystem, same
> services running at *exactly* the same version, same hardware, same
> available resources...). Even with all that, it's still not the same.
I know that my "measures" are not bullet proof, but he was using Kubuntu
before on this machine with a similiar setup, and he says it is a lot
more faster now (similiar setup).
> I can install Ubuntu on my box with a dual-core Athlon64 X2 2.8GHz,
> 2GB DDR RAM, ~750GB hard drive space, install OpenBSD on my other
> Athlon 64 1.8GHz, 2GB DDR RAM, ~60GB hard drive space, and say that
> OpenBSD is clearly faster (which it is BTW). But that's not a valid
The machines are compareable, in fact my Notebook should be a bit faster
than his one, which it is if we encode some soundfiles, etc. But in the
normal desktop usage my PC is noticeable slower.
If i switch to ArchLinux soon i will report if you're interested in. But
that will take some time i think.
Again, i really like Ubuntu and it isn't that slow that i don't want to
use it anymore (there are some more reasons than speed why i want to
play with ArchLinux a little bit and it's more than possible that i will
switch back to Ubuntu after a while), but maybe a closer look to
distributions like ArchLinux could help to speed up Ubuntu a little bit.
(I think Ubuntu was faster some version ago.)
Bye for now!
More information about the ubuntu-users