Linux Kernel Boot Statistics: 2.6.24 To 2.6.39

[curaga]

Yep, echoing Q and others. Even if we had perfect suspend, why the heck use 1-10W when it can be completely off at 0W?

[Uqbar]

you can save 100-200? per year if you shutdown your computer more often than your 1 peer week.

now calculate this for an company with 10 000 computers.

10 000* 100? = 1 000 000-2 000 000?

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.

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!

[curaga]

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!

You're contradicting yourself; clearly if you have a boot time of 15s, 5 to 10 minutes is not wasted, it's 15s.

[Kano]

You get that bootspeed only with a minimal system. Every partition you mount via fstab and every system service you run will affect boot speed. When you don't use network-manager but for example debian and /etc/network/interfaces in order to mount network shares in fstab then that will take much longer too as it waits for the dhcp (using the auto eth0 statement, allow-hotplug eth0 would not wait). You can use those minimal configs easyly on pure clients or laptops but when it is a server it can certainly boot 60s or longer (depending on speed).

[jcgeny]

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

[DeiF]

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.

[BlackStar]

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).

[deanjo]

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.

[BlackStar]

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.

[BlackStar]

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.