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

  • devius
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • jcgeny
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • jcgeny
    replied
    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

    MDGx AXCEL216 MAX Speed Performance Windows 10 2012 8.1 8 7 2008 Vista 2003 XP SP1 SP2 SP3 ME 2000 98 SE OSR2 OSR1 95 NT4 NT 3.11 3.1 3.10 DOS 6 Tricks Secrets Tips Tweaks Hacks Fixes Updates Upgrades games chess

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • DeiF
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcgeny
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X