 |
Help us to move faster and make a better system for you. Donations are highly appreciated.
Donations 2009: $ 0,00
|
|
 Help us to fix problems and defects. Please report bugs here.
|
|
|  | Admin | | No Online Admins |
| | | |  | Online |  | Members: | 0 |  | Guests: | 25 |  | Total: | 25 |
| | | |  | Online Members | | No online members |
|
|
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
lawmanuk
|
|
Post subject: i686 optimisation - fastest distro possible
 Posted: Sep 08, 2008 - 04:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 09, 2008
Posts: 143
Status: Offline
|
|
ok, I know parsix is MUCH faster than some distros out there, such as ubuntu, mint, but in my search for the absolute fastest distro possible, with FULL functionality (ie. no puppy, dsl), i've come to the following list of requirements.
1. fastest = built from source for specific hardware. (ie. gentoo, but takes too long + too expert for newbie like me)
2. second = i686 optimised binary. (ie. arch linux - also has the options to install source if u have the time).
3. third = i386 binary distro.
(i'm not even looking at 64bit, as i don't have that).
if the above is correct, then is there a possible way to recompile parsix to be i686 optimised? It should then at be as fast as arch linux?
please correct me on my understanding above, and if possible provide a solution.
thanks |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
cmost
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: i686 optimisation - fastest distro possible
Posted: Sep 08, 2008 - 06:01 AM
|
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 156
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Status: Offline
|
|
| Anything is possible with Linux. But, just because something can be done doesn't mean it's worthwhile. Sure, you could install a minimal Parsix system (e.g., strip out everything but an i686 optimized kernel) and then use apt-build to rebuild all the packages with i686 flag set...but would you want to? It's like saying I have my heart set on driving a Ford but I'm going to purchase a Chevrolet and then remove the engine, panels, frame etc. and replace them with those of the Ford. Just buy a Ford!! There are already a number of distributions that are optimized for i686: Arch, Yoper, Crux.. and a few that can be made so by compiling packages: Gentoo, Sabayon (Gentoo+extras). Ask yourself how much work are you willing to do and is the minuscule performance boost worth it. I'd say no! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lawmanuk
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 08, 2008 - 08:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 09, 2008
Posts: 143
Status: Offline
|
|
can't the 'work' aspect be transparent if we have i686 binaries aswell as i386 binaries to download?
i thought that arch removed the headache gentoo brings with extra work and compiling time, by having everything i686 binary base and repo already?
just wondering if it wouldn't be an idea to have an i686 binary iso and repo for parsix too? if alan compiled parsix i686 iso version, it would just be another option for us to install instead of i386 version... no?
not sure how big the speed difference between i386 and i686 binaries are for modern pc's, but i'm guessing that faster is better, if possible? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
cmost
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 08, 2008 - 10:28 AM
|
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 156
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Status: Offline
|
|
An i686 optimized version of Ubuntu has been proposed recently and the overall consensus is that the performance increase isn't significant enough to bother. Those seeking to eek out more performance are urged to go to AMD64. One poster summed it up very succinctly:
"We have to keep in mind that optimization is only necessary in a few very limited areas that actually become compute bottlenecks. The rule of thumb is that if your CPU load won't go to 100% for more than a few seconds, then more optimized code translates only into more idle time. That buys you nothing except MAYBE a tiny (unnoticeably small) bit more power efficiency.
This rule of thumb rules out a good 99% of the programs stored on your hard drive. In those cases, you might benefit a bit more from optimizing them for SIZE. Compiling for i686 probably won't help you much in that department.
There are, however, a number of high-profile that could benefit from being compiled not just for i686 but several architectural variants as well, and the system can automatically install the right one. Applications like this include compression tools (bzip2 can shave several minutes off of a many-GB compression task by being optimized), Firefox (because of its renderer and Javascript), OpenOffice, interpreters (bash, ruby, etc.), etc. Anything that would actually benefit from more efficiency.
In other words, don't waste time and space optimizing something that will only speed up from 1 second of run time to 0.9999 seconds of run time.
An exception could be made for heavily-loaded servers. For a desktop, the CPU overhead of your bittorrent program won't matter. But for a server, even the little tools add up. If your CPU runs at 100% all of the time, then every little thing adds up." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lawmanuk
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 09, 2008 - 09:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 09, 2008
Posts: 143
Status: Offline
|
|
hmm... ok cmost,
i know my response time in parsix is half that it was in ubuntu, and was hoping that with optimised code and perhaps even more streamlining, that i could get my response time half what it is now in parsix with perhaps arch/gentoo/sabayon or optimised parsix. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
