Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Linux Kernel Boot Statistics: 2.6.24 To 2.6.39

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    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
    http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
    http://www.mdgx.com/umb.htm

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote 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

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    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
    At one time "instant on" picture was the rage too on TV's but you don't hear griping how slow the flat panels take before you get a full picture now days.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default

    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

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote 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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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