Arch Linux - Slow as hell

[Damian]

Hello,
my System is following:
i7 7700k + 2x8gb DDR4 + NVMe SSD 970 Evo 500GB + GTX 1060 6GB
I've installed Arch Linux using UEFI and 64bit.

                   -`                 
                  .o+`                 g1k777@archPC
                 `ooo/                 OS: Arch Linux 
                `+oooo:                Kernel: x86_64 Linux 4.18.16-arch1-1-ARCH
               `+oooooo:               Uptime: 36m
               -+oooooo+:              Packages: 1003
             `/:-:++oooo+:             Shell: bash 4.4.23
            `/++++/+++++++:            Resolution: 4480x1440
           `/++++++++++++++:           DE: Cinnamon 4.0.0
          `/+++ooooooooooooo/`         WM: Muffin
         ./ooosssso++osssssso+`        WM Theme: cinnamon (Adwaita)
        .oossssso-````/ossssss+`       GTK Theme: Adwaita [GTK2/3]
       -osssssso.      :ssssssso.      Icon Theme: Adwaita
      :osssssss/        osssso+++.     Font: Sans 9
     /ossssssss/        +ssssooo/-     CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K @ 8x 4.5GHz [42.0°C]
   `/ossssso+/:-        -:/+osssso+-   GPU: GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
  `+sso+:-`                 `.-/+oso:  RAM: 1823MiB / 15993MiB
 `++:.                           `-/+/
 .`                                 `/

The usage is very low, the CPU hits only 3-4% when i have a internet browser running.
Why is it so slow? The pages take long to load, the other issue is that when i drag a window it looks very laggy.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Omega:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The Spoopy Kitteh:

Linux reads hardware as modules rather than runs them with drivers. Some distros require you to configure them yourself, while other make them for their hardware. Since Ubuntu is actually Debian-based, it has a higher chance of globlally supporting all types of hardware based on the drivers/modules availible to the public from manufacturers like AMD and NVIDIA.

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/966480657397214262/B20B7ADC2BACCB0AF4503D73D470DC753C74076A/

Linux disro's like ARCH require you to configure and mount those drviers manually once while using command line interface. UBUNTU and others have a wider support installation system. More notably we have he above screenshot. If the OP is asking the questiona nd complaining about ARCH Linux being too slow, they probably should either learn to make and install their own hardware modules, or use a distro that has wide commercial support to have them made. UBUNTU will better support new people tyo Linux than ARCH will.

Proprietary Nvidia drivers from the AUR: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=nvidia


If you download the Nvidia drivers for Linux 64-bit from the Nvidia website you will see that you get a .run file, this file is NOT distribution specific and can be used on any distro. The maintainers of the Nvidia driver for your distribution should make sure that it's up-to-date and working correctly on your distribution.

And downloading drivers from the web is the most un-Linux way of aquiring software.

Hardware modules don't exist, I think you are refering to kernel modules. The majority of devices do not require proprietary drivers since a basic driver will already be implemented in the Linux kernel. Only when you need extra features or better optimization do you need proprietary drivers. Generally the only proprietary drivers you install on a Linux gaming machine is the CPU microcode and if you run a Nvidia GPU the GPU drivers.

Even Arch users generally don't have to touch kernel modules. Everything is already available from the software repos.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von vadim:

But I totally agree with you: Arch linux doesn't look as wise choice.

A little backstory to G1K777, we had a chat, he is secretly a Linux fanboy stuck on Windows, I told him to use Arch because Ubuntu is for noobs. :P

He installed Arch as a challenge.

https://i.imgur.com/qx4jjTK.jpg

Propriatery isn't always good of ran open-source platform.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Omega:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The Spoopy Kitteh:

I understand why anyone would want to use ARCH Linux, but honestly you are better off with Ubuntu because it is more widely supported with current hardware and eaier to install modules to run your PC for it.

Arch is a rolling release, this means it always runs the latest software and does not do traditional major releases every XX time while providing bug fixes for existing releases like Ubuntu and Windows do. It's constantly recieving updates at the cost of system stability.

This means by default that Arch actually has better hardware support then Ubuntu does, Arch running a newer kernel automatically means it has better support for devices.

If you desire to run proprietary drivers for your devices Arch has you covered there as well with the AUR, the Arch User Repository contains basically every driver, tool and piece of software available for GNU/LInux packaged for Arch.


Installing modules? what?

Better and better. I've only ran Arch Linux before 1.0 but then they changed the /dev system (devfs to udev or vice versa or something such?) and USB devices stopped working and upgraded to a new version of ALSA where the mixer didn't work / for whatever reason didn't showed the microphone so I couldn't use my SIP phone.

Just because it's "less tested" doesn't make it better.

As for "noobs" I by no means wouldn't call me a "Linux pro" and I haven't used it in other forms than Android and the Steam Link for a long time but I do have in some form ran or used MSX, AmigaOS, MacOS, OS X, QNX, VxWorks, Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Fedora/Redhat, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, OpenSUSE, not really Mandrake, USB distributions like is it Puppy Linux?

Personally I had a time when I was fine with things being a challenge and not working but even back in that day of ArchLinux 0.7 or whatever I was only fine with it being broken AS LONG AS I HAD BROKEN IT! Also preferably it should had been fixable though like Solaris on x86 things wasn't really fixable by me at-least. Solaris on x86 in the end was too limited in what functioned and Arch Linux broke things _I DIDN'T BREAK_ and that I'm not fine with.

Ubuntu would likely be the safest and friendliest alternative to not SteamOS for Steam with Mint second.
My prefered distribution though has when I last used any been OpenSUSE even thought it used RPMs which seemed very bad back when I started to use something myself (Debian Slink and Potato of 2.x days.) The reason Debian didn't cut it for me then was because it was so very outdated and mixing in testing and unstable lead to conflicts and problems.
Gentoo worked very fine as long as higher optimization flags and unstable packages wasn't used. But there's the difference against Arch Linux in that YOU BROKE IT YOURSELF if you did that. Hence you could fix it by stop doing that.
Pretty sure you can get an unstable OpenSUSE system by using very freshly compiled and packaged versions with little testing too. But it's nothing I'm interested in so I want stability.

I'm not one of those who refuse to run Windows 10 but I feel it's wise to not force a Windows update of the latest version but rather wait at-least four days or so to see if people have issues with it.

Problem solving and learning can be fun but it's not fun when you have to do that instead of what you really wanted to do.
Also now I may be too old and the brain to mushy to keep up.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Omega:

Arch is a rolling release, this means it always runs the latest software and does not do traditional major releases every XX time while providing bug fixes for existing releases like Ubuntu and Windows do. It's constantly recieving updates at the cost of system stability.

This means by default that Arch actually has better hardware support then Ubuntu does, Arch running a newer kernel automatically means it has better support for devices.

If you desire to run proprietary drivers for your devices Arch has you covered there as well with the AUR, the Arch User Repository contains basically every driver, tool and piece of software available for GNU/LInux packaged for Arch.


Installing modules? what?

Better and better. I've only ran Arch Linux before 1.0 but then they changed the /dev system (devfs to udev or vice versa or something such?) and USB devices stopped working and upgraded to a new version of ALSA where the mixer didn't work / for whatever reason didn't showed the microphone so I couldn't use my SIP phone.

Just because it's "less tested" doesn't make it better.

As for "noobs" I by no means wouldn't call me a "Linux pro" and I haven't used it in other forms than Android and the Steam Link for a long time but I do have in some form ran or used MSX, AmigaOS, MacOS, OS X, QNX, VxWorks, Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Fedora/Redhat, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, OpenSUSE, not really Mandrake, USB distributions like is it Puppy Linux?

Personally I had a time when I was fine with things being a challenge and not working but even back in that day of ArchLinux 0.7 or whatever I was only fine with it being broken AS LONG AS I HAD BROKEN IT! Also preferably it should had been fixable though like Solaris on x86 things wasn't really fixable by me at-least. Solaris on x86 in the end was too limited in what functioned and Arch Linux broke things _I DIDN'T BREAK_ and that I'm not fine with.

Ubuntu would likely be the safest and friendliest alternative to not SteamOS for Steam with Mint second.
My prefered distribution though has when I last used any been OpenSUSE even thought it used RPMs which seemed very bad back when I started to use something myself (Debian Slink and Potato of 2.x days.) The reason Debian didn't cut it for me then was because it was so very outdated and mixing in testing and unstable lead to conflicts and problems.
Gentoo worked very fine as long as higher optimization flags and unstable packages wasn't used. But there's the difference against Arch Linux in that YOU BROKE IT YOURSELF if you did that. Hence you could fix it by stop doing that.
Pretty sure you can get an unstable OpenSUSE system by using very freshly compiled and packaged versions with little testing too. But it's nothing I'm interested in so I want stability.

I'm not one of those who refuse to run Windows 10 but I feel it's wise to not force a Windows update of the latest version but rather wait at-least four days or so to see if people have issues with it.

Problem solving and learning can be fun but it's not fun when you have to do that instead of what you really wanted to do.
Also now I may be too old and the brain to mushy to keep up.

Valve now has an alternate to WINE, which makes life a ton easier for Linux and Mac users who want to play Windows-only games. It's called Proton and it is opensource code IIRC.

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton

Personally I am open to many distro's, just I found Ubuntu ideal for gaming in most cases lkike the OP's.

[Omega]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The Spoopy Kitteh:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Omega:

Proprietary Nvidia drivers from the AUR: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=nvidia


If you download the Nvidia drivers for Linux 64-bit from the Nvidia website you will see that you get a .run file, this file is NOT distribution specific and can be used on any distro. The maintainers of the Nvidia driver for your distribution should make sure that it's up-to-date and working correctly on your distribution.

And downloading drivers from the web is the most un-Linux way of aquiring software.

Hardware modules don't exist, I think you are refering to kernel modules. The majority of devices do not require proprietary drivers since a basic driver will already be implemented in the Linux kernel. Only when you need extra features or better optimization do you need proprietary drivers. Generally the only proprietary drivers you install on a Linux gaming machine is the CPU microcode and if you run a Nvidia GPU the GPU drivers.

Even Arch users generally don't have to touch kernel modules. Everything is already available from the software repos.


A little backstory to G1K777, we had a chat, he is secretly a Linux fanboy stuck on Windows, I told him to use Arch because Ubuntu is for noobs. :P

He installed Arch as a challenge.

https://i.imgur.com/qx4jjTK.jpg

Propriatery isn't always good of ran open-source platform.

Proprietary simply means the source code is not available to the public and the only release which is available is a binary (Like .exe files) one.

With Nvidia GPUs when gaming proprietary is the only choice you have, unless you want to run Nouveau which from what I heard is horrible due to lack of official support by Nvidia. And Nvidia proprietary is also horrible so I don't want to imagine how bad Nouveau must be..

I feel bad for everyone running Linux on a machine with Nvidia Optimus tech..


AMD does provide support with the developement of the free and open source graphics drivers such as MESA and AMDGPU which is why AMDGPU + MESA is recommended over AMDGPU-pro for gaming on modern AMD hardware.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The Spoopy Kitteh:

Valve now has an alternate to WINE, which makes life a ton easier for Linux and Mac users who want to play Windows-only games. It's called Proton and it is opensource code IIRC.

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton

It's a modified version of WINE bundled with some tools such as DXVK and VKD3D. It's WINE with some tweaks that make games run a lot better, a lot more stable, and a lot more seamless.

And it no longer supports MAC OS, it also was never implemented in the MAC OS Steam client. Valve has stated they also have no interest in ever making Proton available for Steam on MAC. Main issue being that MAC OS doesn't support Vulkan and instead pushes their Metal API, OR Valve is actively stearing people towards Linux or at least they are prepairing for the Windows ship to sink.

[vadim]

This is the same Wine.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Omega:

It's a modified version of WINE

This ^.