Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Checking In On Ubuntu Karmic's Boot Time

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,629

    Default Checking In On Ubuntu Karmic's Boot Time

    Phoronix: Checking In On Ubuntu Karmic's Boot Time

    By the time Ubuntu 10.04 LTS rolls around next April, Canonical is interested in seeing Ubuntu boot on an Intel Atom netbook (specifically the Dell Mini 9) in less than ten seconds. These incredibly fast boot time goals even led Canonical to decide against investing more time in enhancing the boot experience with Red Hat's Plymouth. Canonical has already come close to achieving this with the Ubuntu 9.04 release earlier this year, but how is Ubuntu 9.10 changing the boot time with defaulting to the EXT4 file-system and their other ongoing changes? In this article, we have re-installed Ubuntu 8.10, 9.04, and a 9.10 development snapshot on two netbooks and one laptop to see how Ubuntu's boot time is changing.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14144

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Salvador - Bahia - Brazil
    Posts
    79

    Default

    We will run these tests again on more systems once Ubuntu 9.04 is golden and as Ubuntu 10.04 LTS approaches.
    I believe you meant to say "Once Ubuntu 9.10 is golden"

  3. #3

    Default 10 second is to the desktop, not to the gdm

    The "10 second boot time" for 10.04 LTS means _to the desktop_, not to the gdm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this case bootchart was stopped at S99/rc2.d, and no automatic logging in was used.

    There are often unclearness about what the "boot time" means, but Ubuntu developer(s) have specified, which I support also, that the only meaningful boot time is from GRUB to desktop with all services started and system usable. (the time before GRUB cannot be affected)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milan, Italy
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timo Jyrinki View Post
    The "10 second boot time" for 10.04 LTS means _to the desktop_, not to the gdm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this case bootchart was stopped at S99/rc2.d, and no automatic logging in was used.

    There are often unclearness about what the "boot time" means, but Ubuntu developer(s) have specified, which I support also, that the only meaningful boot time is from GRUB to desktop with all services started and system usable. (the time before GRUB cannot be affected)
    I agree with you on how to define a meaningful boot time

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeoLinuX View Post
    I agree with you on how to define a meaningful boot time
    Give me a working suspend over fast boots any day of the week.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milan, Italy
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Give me a working suspend over fast boots any day of the week.
    You're damn right.
    I was only discussing about the method to define a "boot time"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Give me a working suspend over fast boots any day of the week.
    Absolutely agree. Fast boot is nice, but it would be even better if we didn't have to boot in the first place.

    By the way, I would prefer working suspend-to-disk to working suspend-to-RAM, even though it is necessarily a bit slower, but I like to power everything off entirely for the night.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nhaehnle View Post
    By the way, I would prefer working suspend-to-disk to working suspend-to-RAM, even though it is necessarily a bit slower, but I like to power everything off entirely for the night.
    Especially with todays SSD's. Suspend to disk should be alot faster on portable systems that use them making suspend to ram really not needed.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timo Jyrinki View Post
    ...(the time before GRUB cannot be affected)
    If it only where possible to (easily!) replace the proprietary BIOS with coreboot. Then every aspect of the boot procedure could have been manipulated.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    82

    Default

    In my own tests I found that just by installing the 2.6.31 kernel buys you a couple seconds. So everything else in 9.10 had to get worse. .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •