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

  • #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