Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Update On The Boot & Power Performance In Ubuntu 10.04

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

  • An Update On The Boot & Power Performance In Ubuntu 10.04

    Phoronix: An Update On The Boot & Power Performance In Ubuntu 10.04

    In December we wrote that Ubuntu 10.04 already shortened the boot time, which has been a great focus amongst Canonical and Ubuntu developers as they strive for a ten second boot. A lot has changed since that article was published last year, including the introduction of Plymouth and many kernel mode-setting improvements along with the introduction of Nouveau for NVIDIA KMS support. We've ran a new boot performance comparison on two laptops and a netbook as we see how the boot times are looking with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS when compared to Ubuntu 9.10. We have also looked at how the power consumption has changed in the Lucid Lynx for these mobile devices.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14623

  • Yfrwlf
    replied
    Originally posted by Panix View Post
    Why use 2.6.33 if you use a SSD? Is that what you're asking? The 2.6.32 doesn't support TRIM and/or isn't activated so it's best to use 2.6.33 kernel if you are using a SSD which supports TRIM.

    I was looking into buying a SSD for my desktop (geez, I wish I owned a modern laptop now... an SSD seems like a required purchase with one now... talk about best of all worlds!). But, the Linux support in TRIM is in infancy right now. Not really stable compared to in Windows. I still want to get one and I'd just use it in Windows and the old/current HDD for my Linux.
    I read that TRIM has been supported since .28, but of course there's supported and supported well. If it was disabled that makes me wonder if there was a problem with the support. The only drives out I can see that support TRIM are really expensive any way.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by Panix View Post
    Why use 2.6.33 if you use a SSD? Is that what you're asking? The 2.6.32 doesn't support TRIM and/or isn't activated so it's best to use 2.6.33 kernel if you are using a SSD which supports TRIM.

    I was looking into buying a SSD for my desktop (geez, I wish I owned a modern laptop now... an SSD seems like a required purchase with one now... talk about best of all worlds!). But, the Linux support in TRIM is in infancy right now. Not really stable compared to in Windows. I still want to get one and I'd just use it in Windows and the old/current HDD for my Linux.
    Lucid is using 2.6.32. I was just wondering if using 2.6.33 instead does anything for performance.

    As for the other thing, I won't pay more than $1/GB. Nor do I afford to. So one more thing for me to worry about

    Leave a comment:


  • Panix
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    Great stuff comparing both SSD and traditional drives. Hopefully this time around I'll actually see a difference too, not just the SSD owners.

    Still, I wonder what's the impact of moving installing kernel 2.6.33.
    Why use 2.6.33 if you use a SSD? Is that what you're asking? The 2.6.32 doesn't support TRIM and/or isn't activated so it's best to use 2.6.33 kernel if you are using a SSD which supports TRIM.

    I was looking into buying a SSD for my desktop (geez, I wish I owned a modern laptop now... an SSD seems like a required purchase with one now... talk about best of all worlds!). But, the Linux support in TRIM is in infancy right now. Not really stable compared to in Windows. I still want to get one and I'd just use it in Windows and the old/current HDD for my Linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by DarkCloud View Post
    Two questions that come to mind.

    What about KDE 4.4, is that about the same speed as Gnome.
    I've installed KDE 4.4 on VirtualBox and it feels rather slow compared to Gnome 2.28 on the same configuration. However, someone mentioned that KDE 4.4 flies with the proper drivers (radeon on Lucid, IIRC).

    And what really kills me with my laptop is how long it takes to turn off with 9.10. When you in a hurry to go somewhere those 20 seconds it takes to power down feels like an hour.
    This could be a problem with your configuration, maybe a daemon that refuses to die or a hard disk that is slow to unmount (maybe it is turned off and needs to be turned on before it is finally unmounted? I've seen this happen before). I have three Karmic systems and all shut down in less than 5 seconds.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by DarkCloud View Post
    Two questions that come to mind.

    What about KDE 4.4, is that about the same speed as Gnome.

    And what really kills me with my laptop is how long it takes to turn off with 9.10. When you in a hurry to go somewhere those 20 seconds it takes to power down feels like an hour.
    KDE cannot be as fast as Gnome, since it has so many more features. Still, on a cheap laptop I bought last summer (~500€, onboard intel video) I could not tell the difference.

    About the shutdown issue, maybe hibernate will do the trick?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nait
    replied
    Boot performance

    Bootcharts would be more interesting with comparison of ubuntu9.10+ureadahead update against ubuntu 10.04.(Which made huge difference for HDDs). Moreover 9.10 bootchart was counted to X start + 45 sek, and its counted different on Lucid so I don't think that you should compare where the chart ends. It would make more sense to compare where simmilar processes ended loading.

    Leave a comment:


  • DarkCloud
    replied
    Two questions that come to mind.

    What about KDE 4.4, is that about the same speed as Gnome.

    And what really kills me with my laptop is how long it takes to turn off with 9.10. When you in a hurry to go somewhere those 20 seconds it takes to power down feels like an hour.

    Leave a comment:


  • codefisher
    replied
    Add silent and cool operation and it's by far the best upgrade I've ever done!
    Agreed. My laptop runs so cool that the fan hardly ever turns on.

    I laptop already boots in about 20 second on Karmic so it will be very exciting to see how fast Lucid goes.

    I ran Karmic from the first alpha and had few problem (except with the change to the new version of GRUB) till I got to the betas. Then lots of things starting going wrong, I was getting maybe 5 crashes a day from various programs.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Sure, it's alpha but with Lucid that doesn't mean unstable. Just a lot of updates every day, which is fun
    Until you hit that specific update that renders your system unbootable. In all honesty, Lucid is not production ready yet (the crashing GDM kinda hints to that, as the massive driver infrastructure updates - no fglrx, unstable nouveau, etc etc).

    Agreed, "I ♥ my SSD", or whatever the sticker that came with it says. When it comes to performance it's one of the best purchases I've made.
    So true, I went from a crappy Seagate 5400 laptop drive to an Intel X25-M and the machine suddenly became a joy to use: rapid boot, instant updates, it feels like a hamster on caffeine!

    Size is not a concern either: 80GB are more than enough for Linux plus programs + music plus 3 virtual machines of your choice (or a windows+linux dual boot if you are so inclined). Add silent and cool operation and it's by far the best upgrade I've ever done!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X