Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: A Two-Second Boot Time With systemd

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,551

    Default

    Two seconds... Well, that beats my 30-something second boot. And that's not counting the BIOS and GRUB loading times, which would bring the number close to a minute.

    It would indeed be interesting to see how it works on other distros. How do you get a list of all boot scripts that are active?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
    Um, if my math serves me correctly - your bootup time would be 7 seconds.

    Which is sweet. Much better than what we have today, no?
    Debian stable here: 7.57 sec for init (another 9.5 sec for KDE)
    He has 5.8 sec with systemd
    I remember Gentoo's OpenRC to be in that range too, as long as you use ramfs.

    It's better, but let's keep it realistic.

    2 second init is nice, but it's not the major reason for switching to systemd.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Gents, many of the suggestions in the article apply only to appliances and fixed-purpose systems. They do not apply to general purpose computing desktops.

    First Examples:
    1: No LVM
    2: No disk encryption
    3: No SELinux

    These three items need a suitable replacement. Disks should be encrypted. Program execution execution needs some form of sandbox. I don't want to say the author is wrong, I would just like to see alternatives offered. As is, all we have is "Linux boots really fast if you disable all sorts of things and adversely affect the security of your system". The first retort that comes to mind is "Duh".

    4: No syslog and auditing. Saying that the journal "is usually more than sufficient for desktops" is.... a short sighted overstatement.
    5: No cron? I'd really have to see if systemd is a suitable replacement. He 'might' be right that you can replace many cron-instanciated startup executables with systemd. Cron will still need to be used for more advanced scheduling, and it's startup can be delayed until after boot.

    Perhaps the author, in time, will be correct. Unfortunately, we need lighter and faster (starting) alternatives for the first three. A smarter alternative may be to work towards decreasing the startup performance penalty of LVM/Encryption/SELinux.

    F

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    But aside from that, starting KDE still takes 5+ seconds, even with an SSD. So what's the point for desktop distributions in extremely fast booting when the desktop environment still takes multiple times the boot times to start up?
    The bootchart in the article shows booting from kernel to complete XFCE desktop in less than two seconds. KDE is bit heavier of course but it could definetly benefit from systemd if the startup script were to be ported to use it. Something like that is probably going to be used in Plasma Active as Mer uses systemd so it might not take that long to come to desktop... or at least I hope so.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    2 second init is nice, but it's not the major reason for switching to systemd.
    I would say that nearly instantaneous boot is pretty damn compelling. Of course many of the other systemd features are even more insteresting but still... If Windows 8 is getting ~10s boot then we can do it five times better. Sounds good to me.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    I would say that nearly instantaneous boot is pretty damn compelling.
    It's not a near-instantaneous boot, it's a near-instantaneous init.

    Boot goes like this:

    BIOS
    GRUB/lilo
    Kernel
    init <------ this is the part that was cut down from 7 seconds to 2 seconds
    X initialisation
    KDE/GNOME

    The whole boot process is still much longer than 10 seconds.

    It's still impressive work, but some of the comments here are misleading. This is only a part of the boot process.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    It's not a near-instantaneous boot, it's a near-instantaneous init.

    Boot goes like this:

    BIOS
    GRUB/lilo
    Kernel
    init <------ this is the part that was cut down from 7 seconds to 2 seconds
    X initialisation
    KDE/GNOME
    To make this more generic:

    Hardware/firmware init
    Bootloader
    Kernel
    service init
    Display server
    Window Manager.

    For appliances, we can actually combine the first three (think linux-bios) and do away with the WM in kiosk style implementations.

    For general purpose computing, we can do away with the majority of boot-from-off situations by improving support for sleep/hibernate. Aside from kernel updates, the only reasons I ever boot my systems is due to shortcomings in my OS's sleep/hibernate implementations.

    Look at the iPad as an example. Booting-from-off is a 30-60 second process, but since it has a proper sleep implementation, booting is an extremely rare occurrence.

    F

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    It's not a near-instantaneous boot, it's a near-instantaneous init.
    http://git.fenrus.org/tmp/bootchart-20120512-1036.svg

    XFCE desktop seems to be completely loaded in less than two seconds. It takes around 500ms for the kernel to load and another 500ms till the X.org can start then bit less than a second till the complete desktop (PulseAudio, Thunar, power management, XFCE panel...) is loaded. So yeah to me it seems that the entire boot proccess from the start of the kernel initialization to the usable desktop takes less than two seconds. Modern BIOS takes around one second to load so around three seconds total?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Adding to my first post, I'd also like to add that the time your computer takes to boot depends strongly of your Hardware. In the case of systemd, I can assure using a HDD vs SSD is an important factor...

    Another important think that (might) wasn't mentioned in the systemd article is the fact a custom-optimized kernel might load significantly faster than the generic distro kernel (most of us) use, (OC, if you know the options to choose in your kernel .config)...

    Cheers

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,498

    Default

    There are a lot of people who still don't use suspend-to-ram, suprisingly.

    I boot maybe once every 10-30 days for a variety of reasons, and the boot time is short enough now that it never concerns me.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    Adding to my first post, I'd also like to add that the time your computer takes to boot depends strongly of your Hardware. In the case of systemd, I can assure using a HDD vs SSD is an important factor...

    Another important think that (might) wasn't mentioned in the systemd article is the fact a custom-optimized kernel might load significantly faster than the generic distro kernel (most of us) use, (OC, if you know the options to choose in your kernel .config)...

    Cheers
    The Wiki article mentions it.
    10. If you work on an appliance, make sure to build all drivers you need into the kernel, since module loading is slow. If you build a distribution at least built all the stuff 90% of all people need into your kernel, i.e. at least USB, AHCI and HDA!

Posting Permissions

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