Daily drove it for a year, and it did its job fine. The devs are friendly, but to me the distro wasn't that much more than Arch with some different kernels
I added the repos to my existing arch install sometime last year I think. It's pretty seamless in that regard, I think I only ran into a mirror sync issue once, and it was resolved a few hours later.
My CPU supports the v4 packages, but I'm not really sure how much benefit there is for most things. (And things like tf/torch aren't coming from the repos anyways.)
I also use their kernel. I can feel a difference between stock and zen or stock and cachyos, but I don't think I'd be able to tell zen and cachyos apart tbh.
I definitely wouldn't switch distros for it, but since it's a trivial, drop in repo, I'll keep using it.
Adding another organization isn't ideal trust-wise of course.
You could just use CachyOS packages on EndeavourOS. https://wiki.cachyos.org/cachyos_repositories/how_to_add_cachyos_repo/
Benefits from optimizations without reinstalling the whole OS!
I'll give that a go and see what it's like, thanks! This seems like a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway.
What happens to my packages installed with the default repos on my system? Will they get changed to the CachyOS optimized version when I go to update or will they remain the same? My guess is that nothing will happen but I'm not certain.
I just did this last night. I put the Cachy repo behind EOS but ahead of Arch. That keeps the look and feel as EOS but grabs optimized Arch packages from Cachy.
If you are just adding Cachy repos to EOS, you have to install the Cachy kernel explicitly if you want it.
There are not that many Cachy packages actually. Almost everything still comes from the Arch repos. The ones Cachy replaces make sense if you are expecting to juice performance ( including some NViDIA patches in the graphics stack ).
It gets replaced with CachyOS optimized version because it will set the repo priority higher.
Reckon this could be done on nix/other distros?
I appreciate the enthusiasm for another arch fork. I hope it works out for them and its users.
It consistently ran slower on a few benchmarks I care about like language model performance, which was surprising. Baulders Gate was also jankyier for some reason. I love that people are out trying to do this stuff and the community was nice. Just like anything the reality is often less exciting than the marketing. It is bundled together arch with some hopeful optimizations that I am certain will work for some hardware and some applications, but not all hardware and all applications.
It looks nice on paper, but I have a very hard time trusting most of the distributions out there. Especially now, with all the security issues reported in the industry. That may sound unfair towards those distributions, but really, can you blame me for my attitude? I mean they have a lot of control of your system and they patch a lot of stuff; even the Kernel. I wonder if their Kernel can be used on other distributions and how it compares to Zen Kernel (I'm on EndeavourOS too, but using Zen Kernel).
I've not looked at different kernels much so that would be very interesting.
Just heard about it now from this post. I like endeavourOS. It has a great community support and the distro is pretty solid. No need to hop around for the same thing.
No need to hop around for the same thing.
It's not really the same thing. EndeavourOS is basically vanilla Arch + a few branding packages. CachyOS is an opionated Arch with optimised packages.
You still have the option to select the DE and the packages you want to install - just like EndeavourOS - but what sets Cachy apart is the optimisations. For starters, they have multiple custom kernel options, with the BORE scheduler (and a few others), LTO options etc. Then they also have packages compiled for the x86-64-v3 and v4 architectures for better performance.
Of course, you could also just use Arch (or EndeavourOS) and install the x86-64-v3/v4 packages yourself from ALHP (or even the Cachy repos), and you can even manually install the Cachy kernel or a similar optimised one like Xanmod. But you don't get the custom configs / opinionated stuff. Which you many actually not want as a veteran user. But if you're a newbie, then having those opinionated configs isn't such a bad idea, especially if you decide to just get a WM instead of a DE.
I've been thru all of the above scenarios, depending on the situation. My homelab is vanilla Arch but with packages from the Cachy repo. I've also got a pure Cachy install on my gaming desktop just because I was feeling lazy and just wanted an optimised install quickly. They also have a gaming meta package that installs Steam and all the necessary 32-bit libs and stuff, which is nice.
Then there's Cachy Browser, which is a fork of LibreWolf with performance optimisations (kinda similar to Mercury browser, except Mercury isn't MARCH optimised).
As for support, their Discord is pretty active, you can actually chat with the developers directly, and they're pretty friendly (and this includes Piotr Gorski, the main dev, and firelzrd - the person behind the BORE scheduler). Chatting with them, I find the quality of technical discussions a LOT higher than the Arch Discord, which is very off-topic and spammy most of the time.
Also, I liked their response to Arch changes and incidents. When Arch made the recent mkinitcpio changes, their made a very thorough announcement with the exact steps you needed to take (which was far more detailed than the official Arch announcement). Also, when the xz backdoor happened, they updated their repos to fix it even before Arch did.
I've also interacted with the devs pesonally with various technical topics - such as CFLAG and MARCH optimisations, performance benchmarking etc, and it seems like they definitely know their stuff.
So I've full confidence in their technical ability, and I'm happy to recommend the distro for folks interested in performance tuning.
cc: @governorkeagan@lemdro.id
MARCH optimisation
It was my understanding that was all but pointless to do these days.
That depends on your CPU, hardware and workloads.
You're probably thinking of Intel and AVX512 (x86-64-v4) in which case, yes it's pointless because Intel screwed up the implementation, but on the other hand, that's not the case for AMD. Of course, that assumes your program actually makes use of AVX512. v3 is worth it though.
In any case, the usual places where you'd see improvements is when you're compiling stuff, compression, encryption and audio/video encoding (ofc, if your codec is accelerated by your hardware, that's a moot point). Sometimes the improvements are not apparent by normal benchmarks, but would have an overall impact - for instance, if you use filesystem compression, with the optimisations it means you now have lower I/O latency, and so on.
More importantly, if you're a laptop user, this could mean better battery life since using more efficient instructions, so certain stuff that might've taken 4 CPU cycles could be done in 2 etc.
In my own experience on both my Zen 2 and Zen 4 machines, v3/v4 packages made a visible difference. And that's not really surprising, because if you take a look the instructions you're missing out on, you'd be like 'wtf':
CMPXCHG16B, LAHF-SAHF, POPCNT, SSE3, SSE4_1, SSE4_2, SSSE3, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, F16C, FMA, LZCNT, MOVBE, OSXSAVE.
And this is not counting any of the AVX512 instructions in v4, or all the CPU-specific instructions eg in znver4.
It really doesn't make sense that you're spending so much money buying a fancy CPU, but not making use of half of its features...
v3 is worth it though
[citation needed]
Sometimes the improvements are not apparent by normal benchmarks, but would have an overall impact - for instance, if you use filesystem compression, with the optimisations it means you now have lower I/O latency, and so on.
Those would show up in any benchmark that is sensitive to I/O latency.
Also, again, [citation needed] that march optimisations measurably lower I/O latency for compressed I/O. For that to happen it is a necessary condition that compression is a significant component in I/O latency to begin with. If 99% of the time was spent waiting for the device to write the data, optimising the 1% of time spent on compression by even as much as 20% would not gain you anything of significance. This is obviously an exaggerated example but, given how absolutely dog slow most I/O devices are compared to how fast CPUs are these days, not entirely unrealistic.
Generally, the effect of such esoteric "optimisations" is so small that the length of your unix username has a greater effect on real-world performance. I wish I was kidding.
You have to account for a lot of variables and measurement biases if you want to make factual claims about them. You can observe performance differences on the order of 5-10% just due to a slight memory layout changes with different compile flags, without any actual performance improvement due to the change in code generation.
That's not my opinion, that's rather well established fact. Read here:
So far, I have yet to see data that shows a significant performance increase from march optimisations which either controlled for the measurement bias or showed an effect that couldn't be explained by measurement bias alone.
There might be an improvement and my personal hypothesis is that there is at least a small one but, so far, we don't actually know.
More importantly, if you’re a laptop user, this could mean better battery life since using more efficient instructions, so certain stuff that might’ve taken 4 CPU cycles could be done in 2 etc.
The more realistic case is that an execution that would have taken 4 CPU cycles on average would then take 3.9 CPU cycles.
I don't have data on how power scales with varying cycles/task at a constant task/time but I doubt it's linear, especially with all the complexities surrounding speculative execution.
In my own experience on both my Zen 2 and Zen 4 machines, v3/v4 packages made a visible difference.
"visible" in what way? March optimisations are hardly visible in controlled synthetic tests...
It really doesn’t make sense that you’re spending so much money buying a fancy CPU, but not making use of half of its features…
These features cater towards specialised workloads, not general purpose computing.
Applications which facilitate such specialised workloads and are performance-critical usually have hand-made assembly for the critical paths where these specialised instructions can make a difference. Generic compiler optimisations will do precisely nothing to improve performance in any way in that case.
I'd worry more about your applications not making any use of all the cores you've paid good money for. Spoiler alert: Compiler optimisations don't help with that problem one bit.
Thank you for the detailed answer, I really appreciate. I've had this EOS install for almost 3 years now and I have multiple drives that are full of things. Very happy with it, too. Moving distros for me isn't as easy as it used to be because of the drives and all the things that I have set up. I don't want to go through the pain of re-setting everything up. I'll, however, try cachyOS either in a vm or a little laptop I have that I use for trying things for fun.
If you're already on Arch/EOS, you don't need to "move distros", all you need to do (ish) is to update your pacman.conf with Cachy's repos and run a pacman -Syuu to reinstall your packages. Oh, and you might also want to install the cachy kernel and maybe the browser for the full experience. Your files and config will remain the same, unless you plan to update/merge them - in which case, I'd recommend replacing your makepkg.conf with the one Cachy provides, for the optimised compiler flags. Other than that, there's no significant difference between the default configs and Cachy's. In fact, EndeavourOS actually deviates more since it uses dracut for generating the initrd, whereas Cachy, like Arch, defaults to mkinitcpio.
Anyways, there's not much point trying CachyOS in a VM since it's really not that much different from EndeavourOS (from a UX point of view); the whole point of Cachy is to eke out the best performance from your system, so running it in a VM defeats the purpose.
I installed CachyOS on a VM ( Proxmox ) just to check out the OOTB experience and I am glad I did.
In a lot of ways, it is similar to EOS as you say. That is a compliment as I really like EOS.
The UX is a bit different though. Lots more blue than purple of course. On the command-line side the differences are bigger. It uses the fish shell with a jazzed up prompt ( reminded me of Garuda ). There are a tonne of aliases. They clearly like Rust as a few of the Rust core util alternatives are installed. They even alias ls to eza.
Both yay and paru are installed at install which is awesome.
The default file system was XFS. Btrfs and zfs were both options. No bcachefs at install but it is available after.
You've answered another question I had (I asked it in another comment), thank you! I'll give the kernel and Cachy repo a try on my EOS install and see how it goes. Thanks again for the detailed response, it's super useful!
I have a very similar sentiment. I’m really happy with EndeavourOS and don’t have any real need or desire to distro hop at the moment.
I am also an EOS fan but I just took one machine and added the Cachy repos to it. Like EOS, it looks like it mostly just uses the Arch repos although, unlike EOS, I guess they offer optimized versions of some packages.
So, the repo hierarchy I have now is EOS, then Cachy, then Arch.
The repo install added a new keyring and upgraded pacman itself.
After a pacman -Syu, all it did was update binutils, Python, neofetch, zstd, kwin, and Xorg-Xwayland.
Neofetch still reports EOS.
I have not installed the Cachy kernel yet or tried their Firefox fork.
It seems like a fairly painless addition. Time will tell.
That's a good way of trying other distros that are based on arch.
Why not Arch?
Do you mean, why I don't use Arch? Instead of EndeavourOS or CachyOS.
These distros are just Arch with some scripts.
EOS is about return on time. I can install and configure Arch. For most of the machines I install, I would rather just use EOS since I like most of its defaults ( including Dracut ). Some of the EOS utilities are nice as well.
As you say, EOS is basically Arch once installed. So what is the downside?
Just having to hunt down and install yay on Arch is reason enough to use EOS to begin with.
I notice that CachyOS installs both yay and paru out-of-the-box. Nice.
I have done a manual install of Arch, just to say that I did. Who knows, I might do that again in the future but for now I'm happy with EOS.
I'm using it for quite some time now. It works better than other distros in terms of UI smoothness (I use GNOME and on an old machine), the included "fixes" commands in the Hello app are really useful. Though I can't benefit from the X86_64 V3 optimizations since my machine doesn't support it. The problem is that it broke 2 or 3 times in the last year. Some issues seem to be related to Flatpaks so I'd highly suggest avoiding them on this distro. They can do stuff up to breaking your file system (no jokes). So if you want a stable system, don't use Cachy. If you want a faster system no matter what, definitely try it. Some of the bugs can be already fixed but it hasn't been enough time for me to recommend the distro as a stable one
I really dislike these Arch forks that don't add anything really special. The more your system differs from a normal Arch install, (dracut on EndeavourOS for example) the less helpful resources will be available. Just use Arch instead.
All cachyos does differently is have repos with the best optermisations applied. In practice its just a faster version of arch with an optional archinstall GUI.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0