Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Kernel Boot Statistics: 2.6.24 To 2.6.39

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    kernel linux are cool , mostly because they have a lot of drivers .
    that should explain why the x86 is getting very "slow"

    kernel should be able to "slim" itself , may be with the use of a new config.sys.linux file [ it was cool with dos to set some loadhigh region ...] .
    i mean that kernel should not try to load pcmcia drivers at each boot if there are none .

    may be you can build kernel for your pc , like that , and then rebench

    Comment


    • #17
      The whole "boot up speed is not necessary" argument is getting old.
      Arguments like these only show how little we know about people.

      Of course is important. It's a critical feature. Normal users boot the systems one or two times a day (or more). Maybe you don't care but most people care. It's the first thing one user notices about a system.
      Don't think on current Linux users. We're mostly geeks, and maybe don't care about that feature. Think on future Linux users.

      No wonder why we have ~1% market share.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DeiF View Post
        The whole "boot up speed is not necessary" argument is getting old.
        Arguments like these only show how little we know about people.

        Of course is important. It's a critical feature. Normal users boot the systems one or two times a day (or more). Maybe you don't care but most people care. It's the first thing one user notices about a system.
        Don't think on current Linux users. We're mostly geeks, and maybe don't care about that feature. Think on future Linux users.

        No wonder why we have ~1% market share.
        Exactly. A 3sec boot time would be a *huge* selling point for a system and great stride towards the "computers as appliances" model. Google understands that - and this is exactly what will sell ChromeOS to the average user (open it and it just works, no thumb twiddling necessary).

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
          Exactly. A 3sec boot time would be a *huge* selling point for a system
          Not really. I don't I have heard once in my life anybody buy a computer with one of their criteria questions being "How fast does it boot?" Realistically anything that is not overly long (minute+ boot) most people are satisfied with. It is far more important to have a proper sleep functioning.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Uqbar View Post
            Saved electicity is nothing when compared to enhanced productivity.
            A fully productive development workstation needs 5 to 10 minutes from power off.
            It takes a few seconds (to enter the screen saver password) on a powered on PC.
            Can you compare the cost savings?
            Moreover, saving 15 to 30 seconds a day in boot times doesn't seem to be of any real value. You loose much more in looking for a park place in the morning!
            "A fully productive development workstation needs 5 to 10 minutes from power off."

            really we talk about PCs with 2000mb/s SSDs and a boot time of 5 seconds and a complete ready up means starting all programms in 20 seconds.

            means you don'T lose productivity you just save power.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              Not really. I don't I have heard once in my life anybody buy a computer with one of their criteria questions being "How fast does it boot?" Realistically anything that is not overly long (minute+ boot) most people are satisfied with. It is far more important to have a proper sleep functioning.
              If you could reliably cold boot (with or without hibernation) in 3 seconds would you ever choose to sleep instead? Sleep is nothing but a workaround for slow boot times.

              The ultimate goal of the OS should be to get out of the way. Fast, unobtrusive booting is a large part of that goal.

              Comment


              • #22
                Fake edit: for what it's worth, fast booting is the first thing I look for in any new motherboard or laptop I buy. If it takes 10'' to discover disk devices, I simply won't buy it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  most posters are not carrying about boot time , but if you boot quickly then softwares are running fasters .
                  i not easy yet with linux booting and mem used . with dos it was very interresting to have a lot of free mem in the 640 ko and use as much as possible upper mem for drivers .

                  with nt and linux looks the same , no optimization is possible
                  have a look at this old tool : umbpci
                  http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
                  http://www.mdgx.com/umb.htm

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    edit time is too short : 1 minute so i add this

                    with nt and linux , it looks the same , no optimization is possible by editing files to maximize the memory usage according to the pc and cards, it has

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      Realistically anything that is not overly long (minute+ boot) most people are satisfied with.
                      I was satisfied with the 4MB of ram my first PC came with, until I upgraded it to 16MB. I was satisfied with the SNES until I... nah, I'm still satisfied with the SNES

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by devius View Post
                        I was satisfied with the 4MB of ram my first PC came with, until I upgraded it to 16MB. I was satisfied with the SNES until I... nah, I'm still satisfied with the SNES
                        At one time "instant on" picture was the rage too on TV's but you don't hear griping how slow the flat panels take before you get a full picture now days.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                          If you could reliably cold boot (with or without hibernation) in 3 seconds would you ever choose to sleep instead? Sleep is nothing but a workaround for slow boot times.
                          Yes I would, here is why. The people that are going to be putting their system in a up/down state the most are laptop users. Now if I have to boot everytime I want to close that lid it also means reopening the applications I had open, remembering what file I had open, getting everything just aligned right again, etc. With a proper working sleep I can resume right where I left off. That is something a reboot doesn't do. In this day and age having to do a full boot should become a rarity not common practice.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            Yes I would, here is why. The people that are going to be putting their system in a up/down state the most are laptop users. Now if I have to boot everytime I want to close that lid it also means reopening the applications I had open, remembering what file I had open, getting everything just aligned right again, etc. With a proper working sleep I can resume right where I left off. That is something a reboot doesn't do. In this day and age having to do a full boot should become a rarity not common practice.
                            That's why he included hibernation. If that worked within a few seconds you indeed wouldn't need sleep.

                            Other than that you're right; opening applications and everything after a real boot is mega time consuming and annoying and a real productivity killer. To me it's a mystery why people would really want to reboot and are so obsessed with boot times.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Michael, a suggestion for something Phoronix could create --
                              a diff tool for bootcharts.

                              No, I'm not going to stare at eight bootcharts until my eyes bleed trying to find the biggest changes. But that info laid out in +/- ms times for each section, omitting very small differences, would be handy.

                              Serious suggestion

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                                ....
                                now calculate this for an company with 10 000 computers. ....

                                means shutdown and start speed is business critical.

                                not for your business? maybe you give a fuck about 200 per year per pc.. but other people care.
                                200 is the price of windows ;']
                                10 000 computers running linux ? are you sure there are so many around the world ?

                                i joke but the more i read the forum , the more i find it too "geeky" .
                                if you know hl2 game [ that only runs with windows ] linux looks like the Black Mesa Mod http://www.moddb.com/mods/black-mesa

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X