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

Thread: Checking In On Ubuntu Karmic's Boot Time

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,645

    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
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    79

    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. .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Strange, because on my AMD single core system, the boot times are far noticeably faster on 9.10 and also X starts very fast too.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2

    Talking More to come...

    I do believe that the boot performance delivery milestone is the beta (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsT...eStatus/Karmic)

    So it looks like there's more to come ;-)

    //MadsRH
    anotherubuntu.blogspot.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milan, Italy
    Posts
    104

    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milan, Italy
    Posts
    104

    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"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    152

    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.

Posting Permissions

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