MX kernel vs Antix's

[Moltke]

I searched the forum for this before asking but didn't find anything that answers my question which is; I recently installed MX 4.19.0-1 kernel, is there any difference between this one and Antix's? If so, which ones exactly? Thanks for your answers.

[dolphin_oracle]

I searched the forum for this before asking but didn't find anything that answers my question which is; I recently installed MX 4.19.0-1 kernel, is there any difference between this one and Antix's? If so, which ones exactly? Thanks for your answers.

I don't know th exact differences bit the kern configs for each installed kernel are in /boot

[manyroads]

I searched the forum for this before asking but didn't find anything that answers my question which is; I recently installed MX 4.19.0-1 kernel, is there any difference between this one and Antix's? If so, which ones exactly? Thanks for your answers.

As you can see from my signature below, I use an antiX kernel. I am very happy with it.

[Moltke]

I searched the forum for this before asking but didn't find anything that answers my question which is; I recently installed MX 4.19.0-1 kernel, is there any difference between this one and Antix's? If so, which ones exactly? Thanks for your answers.

As you can see from my signature below, I use an antiX kernel. I am very happy with it.

Would you say using Antix's reports some improvement over MX's regarding performance and/or resource usage?

[Stevo]

The MX kernel is backported from upstream Debian, and so uses all the Debian patches and configuration, except both MX and antiX kernels use a 1000 Hz kernel switch frequency. Debian uses 250, which is better for server use, but not so good for desktops.

The antiX kernel also is patched to support framebuffer graphics during boot.

[Moltke]

The MX kernel is backported from upstream Debian, and so uses all the Debian patches and configuration, except both MX and antiX kernels use a 1000 Hz kernel switch frequency. Debian uses 250, which is better for server use, but not so good for desktops.

The antiX kernel also is patched to support framebuffer graphics during boot.

Thanks for the informative reply. I asked because I read in some thread I can't remember now, someone recommending on using Antix's and unless I'd misunderstood the whole thing, it is supposed be better for a low spec machine meaning better/lower resource usage. Maybe the only way to find out is give it a try and see how it does.

[azrielle]

What I posted on Distrowatch in my righteous indignation (whether they publish it or not, though...):
--------------------------------
32bit MX18.1, updated from 17.1, on Atom n570 based Acer AO D257 netbook with 2GB RAM, 128GB Adata SSD (w/2.08GB Swap partition enabled), antiX 4.19.18-PAE kernel,
Idling at 206MB (as reported by 'htop')! Cold Boot time 27 seconds, including connecting to my home wi-fi.
Not too shabby!!
Added components:
(installed with MX_PI, NOT with Synaptic, MX's VERY USEFUL native-built GUI PACKAGE INSTALLER--previous detractors ought to TRY IT SOMETIME, instead of griping about Synaptic, WHICH THEY CAN EASILY FIND IN "MX TOOLS"!)
Calibre, Opera-beta, Slimjet, Simple Screen Recorder, Geany, Speedcrunch, YACReader, MX18 Wallpapers, antiX 4.19.18-PAE Linux kernel.
--------------------------------
Moreover, I was pleasantly surprised that the RAM usage at idle, even for 32bit, was so low; was expecting something in the 330-375MB range. Barring contradicting statements from the antiX Team, I suspect that the antiX kernel might have something to do with it.

[Stevo]

Both kernels only load modules on demand, so one shouldn't be "lighter" on any given hardware.

The Liquorix kernels we have available do have some differences:

MuQSS Process Scheduler: Fair process scheduler for gaming, multimedia, and real-time loads.

Preemptible tree-based hierarchical RCU: RCU implementation for real-time systems.

Hard Kernel Preemption: Most aggressive kernel preemption before requiring real-time patches. Guarantees responsive system under high intensity mixed workload scenarios.

Budget Fair Queue: Proper disk scheduler optimized for desktop usage, high throughput / low latency.

TCP BBR Congestion Control: Fast congestion control, maximizes throughput, guaranteeing higher speeds than Cubic.

Smaller TX Net Queues: Reduced queue size on network devices to combat buffer bloat.

Ubuntu ureadahead Support: Compatible with Ubuntu's readahead.

Paravirtualization options enabled to reduce overhead under virtualization.

Minimal Debugging: Minimum number of debug options enabled to increase kernel throughput.

[BitJam]

Thanks for the informative reply. I asked because I read in some thread I can't remember now, someone recommending on using Antix's and unless I'd misunderstood the whole thing, it is supposed be better for a low spec machine meaning better/lower resource usage. Maybe the only way to find out is give it a try and see how it does.

The output of the "dmesg" command on a recently booted computer gives information about how much space is used by the kernel. Example:

Code: Select all

 Memory: 7815424K/8028552K available 
 (7954K kernel code, 1058K rwdata, 2504K rodata, 1288K init, 
 872K bss, 213128K reserved, 0K cma-reserved)

I added line-breaks because the line is long. You can get more information about the kernel's memory usage here: Where is the memory going? Memory usage in the 2.6 kernel. Perhaps there is more recent information somewhere.

[Moltke]

Both kernels only load modules on demand, so one shouldn't be "lighter" on any given hardware.

The Liquorix kernels we have available do have some differences:

MuQSS Process Scheduler: Fair process scheduler for gaming, multimedia, and real-time loads.

Preemptible tree-based hierarchical RCU: RCU implementation for real-time systems.

Hard Kernel Preemption: Most aggressive kernel preemption before requiring real-time patches. Guarantees responsive system under high intensity mixed workload scenarios.

Budget Fair Queue: Proper disk scheduler optimized for desktop usage, high throughput / low latency.

TCP BBR Congestion Control: Fast congestion control, maximizes throughput, guaranteeing higher speeds than Cubic.

Smaller TX Net Queues: Reduced queue size on network devices to combat buffer bloat.

Ubuntu ureadahead Support: Compatible with Ubuntu's readahead.

Paravirtualization options enabled to reduce overhead under virtualization.

Minimal Debugging: Minimum number of debug options enabled to increase kernel throughput.

Thanks for the informative reply. I believe I tried Liquorix kernel some time ago in another distro and didn't go so well. I might give it a try again.

Thanks for the informative reply. I asked because I read in some thread I can't remember now, someone recommending on using Antix's and unless I'd misunderstood the whole thing, it is supposed be better for a low spec machine meaning better/lower resource usage. Maybe the only way to find out is give it a try and see how it does.

The output of the "dmesg" command on a recently booted computer gives information about how much space is used by the kernel. Example:

Code: Select all

 Memory: 7815424K/8028552K available 
 (7954K kernel code, 1058K rwdata, 2504K rodata, 1288K init, 
 872K bss, 213128K reserved, 0K cma-reserved)

I added line-breaks because the line is long. You can get more information about the kernel's memory usage here: Where is the memory going? Memory usage in the 2.6 kernel. Perhaps there is more recent information somewhere.

Thanks for the reply. Actually, I ran

Code: Select all

dmesg

and yes the output is quite long and can't understand much of it.