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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Linux Kernel Boot Statistics: 2.6.24 To 2.6.39

    Linux Kernel Boot Statistics: 2.6.24 To 2.6.39

    Phoronix: Linux Kernel Boot Statistics: 2.6.24 To 2.6.39

    Recently there were benchmarks on Phoronix looking at the Ubuntu 11.04 boot performance relative to past Ubuntu Linux releases. This was done with five mobile systems and going back as far as Ubuntu 8.04. The tests showed around Ubuntu 10.04 LTS was where the boot performance in Ubuntu's been the best but Ubuntu 10.10 and 11.04 have slowed down a bit in how fast it's reaching the desktop. In this article we are looking at the boot performance when simply changing out the kernels. Every kernel from Linux 2.6.24 to 2.6.39-rc4 was analyzed.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15966

  • dnebdal
    replied
    Win7 actually boots very quickly on my laptop. I'm not sure if it beats the Ubuntu install, but both are completely undramatic to reboot.

    (The desktop takes ages, though - I suspect it might be because it's got a slow HD, instead of the SSD in the laptop.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimmy
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    In this day and age having to do a full boot should become a rarity not common practice.
    I agree full-heartedly. However, until suspend/hibernate becomes reliable, it's just not an option. It's nice to have a backup option (fast booting) even if it's not as good.

    Look at Windows... boot times are horrible in comparison but suspend and hibernate work nearly flawlessly on everything. If suspend doesn't work on windows you really take a hit. Also Windows has a long history of being reboot happy when int comes to updating software.

    Even when you can avoid frequent rebooting, it still happens. I'd rather it not be painful like Windows. That's why we should care about boot times. So even when you're facing the necessity of a reboot it's a slight inconvenience rather than a full on go-brew-coffee break.

    Leave a comment:


  • dnebdal
    replied
    Oh, and thinking about it, the amount of data read through the different kernel versions is also kind of interesting:


    (Damn you, 1 min edit limit.)

    Leave a comment:


  • dnebdal
    replied
    One thing that is slightly odd:
    If you look at the boot time (seconds) and the bandwidth (MB/sec), you should be able to multiply them and get the amount of data read during the boot process.

    Plot that, and you get this:

    It's fairly obvious that the time correlates well with the amount of data read, as opposed to with the version number in itself.

    That can be shown more clearly:


    I'm not sure what's going on on the slower end of the Core2 graph there, but basically the boot time has been the same with varying amounts of data - maybe it's stuck waiting for something else?

    Leave a comment:


  • cyan
    replied
    Originally posted by jcgeny View Post
    200? is the price of windows ;']
    10 000 computers running linux ? are you sure there are so many around the world ?
    Well we have around 12000 which we power down overnight and wake up with WOL packets precisely to save power, and it's not a trivial amount.

    I did consider renting out the compute power instead during off-peak times, which would probably result in more money, but it's not really core business for a bank

    I believe boot times are really important, but not for any silly reasons of productivity (the difference is tiny), but for reasons of user attitudes, especially new users. When the computer is booting, users are typically sitting watching it, not able to do anything. It's the watched-pot effect. Particularly for new users, who are fully focussed on the system and are consciously forming their impressions of the software, it's a big thing. We've found that it is critically important to manage user's impressions of the system when doing a large change like a desktop operating system replacement - a single hostile user in a branch (easy to have - users hate change) can cause the entire branch to actively look for reasons to fault the system. Winning them back from that state is hard

    Leave a comment:


  • jcgeny
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ranguvar
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • not.sure
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X