Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: MeeGo 1.2 Boots Nearly Twice As Fast As Fedora, Ubuntu

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Sleep is just a nasty workaround for long boot times. Fix your boot times and sleep becomes unnecessary.

    What, you say you wish to resume without closing your applications? Shut down should be completely replaced by hibernation.

    In short: fix boot times (say, 3'' max), completely remove broken sleep and replace shut down by hibernation. Problem solved!

    (And when you need a 100% boot, just reboot).

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Sleep is just a nasty workaround for long boot times. Fix your boot times and sleep becomes unnecessary.

    What, you say you wish to resume without closing your applications? Shut down should be completely replaced by hibernation.

    In short: fix boot times (say, 3'' max), completely remove broken sleep and replace shut down by hibernation. Problem solved!

    (And when you need a 100% boot, just reboot).
    I completely disagree, having to use hibernation and reboots are the "nasty workaround" for a poorly implemented sleep. A PC should with reguards to power operate like a cell phone with reboots only being needed in the most dire of circumstances.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I completely disagree, having to use hibernation and reboots are the "nasty workaround" for a poorly implemented sleep. A PC should with reguards to power operate like a cell phone with reboots only being needed in the most dire of circumstances.
    I agree with you for once. Suspend to RAM is my favorite way of saving energy when my computer isn't needed, without an expensive reboot.

    I can think of only a few situations where a Suspend to RAM is unwise:

    (1) You're in a thunderstorm, and you don't have a UPS on your desktop. You could lose power with the RAM warm, and that isn't too friendly to program state (everything you startup will be in some sort of recovery mode - your browser, LibreOffice, etc.)

    (2) You want to suspend a laptop, but you won't be able to plug it in for many hours (12+). The battery will drain completely or mostly in that time from keeping the RAM warm. Better to save battery life and shut it down completely, so you can turn it back on and have a near-full battery on the other side.

    If you get caught in situations like these frequently, you find yourself wishing you had a faster boot time. I'll admit that it isn't that important to me, because I don't hit either of these situations more than once a week or so, but shit happens and a fast boot would be nice in those times where you have to do it.

    For me, as long as the boot time is significantly faster than what you get on a loaded-down Windows machine (about 3 to 5 minutes of waiting for all the updaters and preloaders to grind through), I'm satisfied. So yeah, it's pretty much a pissing contest if Linux distros are fighting for boot time in the range of less than 1 minute. I use Suspend to RAM often enough that I don't care about boot time differences of less than a minute.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Boot times might be important for embedded. Things like appliances, entertainment stuff, cars. Some of that is really best to switch off entirely (I guess).

    If you reboot your laptop/desktop every day, even if hibernate/suspend are working, you're doin it wrong.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by not.sure View Post
    If you reboot your laptop/desktop every day, even if hibernate/suspend are working, you're doin it wrong.
    Ha, I'll bite. If I use my desktop 8 hours a day, why the heck would I want it consuming power for the other 16 hours (sleep)?
    Or hibernate, sure it would use no power, but it's just as fast as a boot for me. Why bother, when then there's state that can be corrupted?

    No, I couldn't care less about keeping an app open. If I have work in progress, I know how to save it and close the app.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Ha, I'll bite. If I use my desktop 8 hours a day, why the heck would I want it consuming power for the other 16 hours (sleep)?
    Exactly! Sleep wastes power unnecessarily.

    Or hibernate, sure it would use no power, but it's just as fast as a boot for me. Why bother, when then there's state that can be corrupted?
    And that's the real issue. If hibernation was as fast as sleep, noone would be using sleep anymore. And with SSDs this is within the realm of possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanljo
    I completely disagree, having to use hibernation and reboots are the "nasty workaround" for a poorly implemented sleep. A PC should with reguards to power operate like a cell phone with reboots only being needed in the most dire of circumstances.
    A computer sleeping consumes as much energy as a cellphone running, ergo sleep is wasteful.

    If a computer booted and/or hibernated in <3'', I assure you you wouldn't need sleep at all. Do you disagree?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    187

    Default

    I agree with all above posters... or i don't agree with any :S

    Just give me options that work reliably and work fast so i can make the choice that suits me best.

    Fast boot impresses windows users... I just assumed thats what its for

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Do you disagree?
    Yes I do. It is unnecessary to power down and power up a system every time. Even the fastest SSD's out there are extremely slow compared to a sleep/wake and that is very unlikely that it will ever be remotely close to a sleep/wake in speed. Most posts and device detection alone take many times longer then a sleep/wake cycle. The amount of power consumed in a sleep status is extremely minimal (chances are your alarm clock uses as much if not more power). You should only have to run a post scenario once a day at most. There aren't many products out there that still do a full power cycle when it is "shut off" most modern appliances actually go into a sleep mode (blueray players, cable boxes, phones, etc) and don't do a full boot every time you go to use it.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    I like to completely power down my pc, it wastes 2,4W on standby and 4 W on suspend to ram. Some days I don't use my computer so , why I have to waste 4 W / Hour during 48 hours??

    Short boot times is a really nice feature!!. On my hardware windows is booting on 45 sec and arch linux on 20 sec. Wait 45 sec is really disturbing when you get used to 20 sec boot times (I am using e4rat to futher improve boot speed on arch linux, It's a nice application if u are using ext4 filesystem).

    This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

    "Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
    The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

    "Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
    The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative
    That's very interesting. I hate it when appliances have a standby mode as their only shutdown mechanism.

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
  •