×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu 9.04 Daily Build Boots In 21.4 Seconds

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the spurious-precision-is-2.6-times-better dept.

Debian 654

Pizzutz writes "Softpedia reports that Ubuntu 9.04 Boots in 21.4 Seconds using the current daily build and the newly supported EXT4 file system. From the article: 'There are only two days left until the third Alpha version of the upcoming Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope) will be available (for testing), and... we couldn't resist the temptation to take the current daily build for a test drive, before our usual screenshot tour, and taste the "sweetness" of that evolutionary EXT4 Linux filesystem. Announced on Christmas Eve, the EXT4 filesystem is now declared stable and it is distributed with version 2.6.28 of the Linux kernel and later. However, the good news is that the EXT4 filesystem was implemented in the upcoming Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha 3 a couple of days ago and it will be available in the Ubuntu Installer, if you choose manual partitioning.' I guess it's finally time to reformat my /home partition..."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

654 comments

Your Goal: One Second or Less (5, Interesting)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456471)

This is one of my pet peeves: why can't computers boot in a second or less?

Imagine a visionary like Steve Jobs (by the way, enjoy your leave of absence and please come back). He goes to his team and says "I don't care what it takes, build me a computer which boots in one second".

Ignore the past, the legacy of tens of years of layer after layer of OS software. Can it be done?

A 3 GHz dual-core processor can process 6 billion instructions in that first second. I know the disk is a problem. I'm not asking for all possible OS services to be up in a second... But I'm sure this could be improved greatly. It's all out there in the open. People want this.

--
FairSoftware.net [fairsoftware.net] -- work where geeks are their own boss

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456523)

He already did that â" that's why OS X 10.3 took about 40 seconds to boot, and 10.4/10.5 take about 4 seconds. They fixed it by replacing initd with launchd, which schedules dependant tasks, and makes optimal use of resources.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456693)

Maybe the workstations and servers do, but my 10.5 powerbook sure doesn't. Even when you get to the gui, it still takes another 10+ seconds before anything actually works.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (3, Interesting)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456809)

10.4/10.5 take about 4 seconds

On what hardware?
I have a brand new MacBook sitting next to me that takes pretty exactly 30 seconds from the push of the button to a usable desktop. Is it broken?

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (0)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456983)

Not at all, that includes all sorts of crazy stuff like the EFI kicking the process off, and the login process (same as the Ubuntu test). What you should time is the time between seeing a grey apple with a spinner, and seeing a login window.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

neuromanc3r (1119631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456825)

and 10.4/10.5 take about 4 seconds.

I'm sorry, but that is bullshit. I'm writing this from a MacBook running 10.5, which does not boot in anywhere near that time.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456845)

He already did that â" that's why OS X 10.3 took about 40 seconds to boot, and 10.4/10.5 take about 4 seconds.

Nice try. After 4 seconds, a Mac with OS X 10.4 won't even have turned on its video output. After 2 minutes you might see the boot screen, but good luck getting any programs to run within the first 3-4 minutes.

It's simply not comparable to something like the asus eee, and the difference is noticable.

(being able to resume from sleep however, makes OS X 10.4 a world of difference better than Windows)

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456931)

I'll have to check how long my aluminum macbook takes to boot. Certainly more than 4 seconds. Probably less than 4 minutes, I think.

That being said, sleep & restore work flawlessly. So good that the grandparent poster probably got confused and thought it was doing a full boot in 4 seconds (which sounds about correct for restore from deep sleep).

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (3, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457005)

Yes, but then, as we're comparing penis sizes, lets do it fairly. TFA explicitly states that they time from after the boot loader is finished, to when the login window appears. Boot your mac, and time between the grey apple with a spinner appearing (the grey apple is displayed while the boot loader does its thing), until the login window appears.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (-1, Offtopic)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456997)

Wow the reality distortion field is strong today. Modding a total lie to +5. . . . Oh no! . . Its pulling . in . . .
 
SSDs if you think about it are a really innovative cost effective way to improve computers. Itunes DRM was never that big of a deal. I love you Jobs! Have my babies!

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (4, Informative)

rgbe (310525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456553)

I agree totally. 21.4 seconds is incredibly slow, and that's only to get to the login screen... which is typically only half way. I know that it is possible to boot Linux in 5 seconds for some special cases. However, the boot time should be even quicker.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (2)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456601)

Yea, I mean I run archlinux and I'm up and logged in, about 10-15 seconds...Dell laptop so nothing special

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (0, Redundant)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456925)

Define boot time? The time it takes for the computer to start? Or the time it takes for the computer to start and be able to be used?

Most regular people think boot time is when the computer is ready and waiting on them. 4-5 from totally off to usable? Sounds like a great idea. Possible is a command line based OS but with GUI unlikely. I like to see it, I just do not see it happening. To many things are running. Turning them off means people then complain about certain programs taking too long to start.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (5, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456575)

I think there's more to it than that, though, too. For example, you'd have to completely bypass all checking, device discovery, etc., on boot (it takes time to discover drives, PCI/PCI-E/ISA ;) /USB device. Yeah, you could just have that set up in BIOS or something and just use that configuration, but that could be a pain, too.

Now, if we're talking about post-POST boot-up, I think something could be done there. Even if it was having the option of, oh, 8GB of onboard memory dedicated to having a fast-boot operating system.

As far as the extremely fast-boot idea goes, though, isn't that sorta what Good OS's partnership of Cloud and GIGABYTE is supposed to be? The GIGABYTE Touch Netbook M912 to be precise. Link here [thinkgos.com]. It was mentioned on slashdot a while ago as well.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456591)

I dont really want it.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456615)

After reaching the goal of not having to reboot it at all for years, reaching the one of booting it in N seconds dont look so special.

To be fair, power outages happens, not always suspend in notebooks is the best choice, and kernel updates happens too, And sometimes you want to have downtime as minimal as possible.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (4, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456835)

If it boots in less that 1/3 to 1/6 as much time as ext3... Surely there will be an improvement in overall performance?

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456619)

http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/

Intel engineers have significantly reduced the boot time. However, there's a lot of hacks that need to be done to do so. Hopefully, a lot of those changes will make it in. At 10 seconds, you've got a PC that boots really fast. At 5, you've got a PC you're more likely to shutdown than hibernate or sleep (Linux has session restore which, for the most part, counteracts some of the advantages of hibernating of shutting down).

Also, 1 second boot is probably not possible simply because it'll probably take that long just to read all the initialization files. Maybe with SSD it might become a possibility, but even still your system becomes a lot harder to maintain.

For instance, you have to have all driver support compiled in ahead of time, meaning either you have a very custom kernel or you have a kernel that is way bigger than you need.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (5, Insightful)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456711)

So in order to be a "visionary", I merely have to decide what consumers might want (not that hard being one yourself), and then ask people smarter than yourself to make it happen with no actual technical insight on how to make it happen yourself?

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456733)

Steve Jobs is dying. Get used to it MacFag, your overlord is shriveling up and wilting away like a fucking rotting apple. HA. HA. HA.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (5, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456765)

A 3 GHz dual-core processor can process 6 billion instructions in that first second. I know the disk is a problem. I'm not asking for all possible OS services to be up in a second... But I'm sure this could be improved greatly. It's all out there in the open. People want this.

Hard to say if there's really a point to booting up before the services are running.

What good is the PC being 'at the desktop' if the search service still hasn't started, the network still hasn't obtained an ip-address, half my tray icons aren't up? and the hard drive is still madly churning to get everything else running, so anything I try and launch is just going to be thrown into the queue and it probably will depend on something that hasn't started up yet anyway.

Seriously, how much stuff could you really -defer- to after seeing the desktop and have a useful system?

Remember the average hard drive moves under 50MB/s. Even a fairly modest Ubuntu desktop requires several times that much RAM. If the hard drive started loading data at maximum speed you've got maybe 50MB you can load in that time, and probably far less in actual practice. That means your kernel, drivers, HAL, desktop environment, localization, firewall, network, background, theme, etc has to ALL fit in under 50MB. And you'd need some sort of impossible situation where the cpu could run all the initialization code for all that in parallel, without waiting... nevermind that it almost has to be initialized in sequence due to the layer dependancies.

If you want instant on PCs, the only real solution is to never turn them off, waking from suspend to RAM is about as good as its going to get for the forseeable future.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456999)

the network still hasn't obtained an ip-address

Well, with NetworkManager on a wifi connection, you don't obtain an IP address until after login anyways.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (4, Interesting)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457001)

That means your kernel, drivers, HAL, desktop environment, localization, firewall, network, background, theme, etc has to ALL fit in under 50MB. [snip]

Why not use DSL? (Damn Small Linux, not a second phone line)

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

log1385 (1199377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456769)

Here's basically what happens when most computers boot up: the BIOS is loaded first, and makes sure that all of the important hardware is working. Then the BIOS looks for a bootable device (usually your hard drive). After that, the instructions of in the boot sector of your hard drive (or other bootable device) takes over and loads the OS.

That said, I think it's reasonable to ask for a 1 second boot time. Here's hoping.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

Arterion (941661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456815)

I know the disk is a problem.

Absolutely. And if you want to have everything cached to RAM, it's significantly faster. In fact, someone already thought of that and engineered the ACPI S3 power state.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

edbob (960004) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456831)

You are absolutely correct. My first computer had a processor that ran just under 1 MHz and it booted up in maybe 2 or 3 seconds. If it didn't, I just turned it off and back on and it was up and ready. With today's dual- and quad-core processors running 3000 times faster, I think that the computer should be booted up and ready to go before I lift my finger from the power button!

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456839)

The problem is on the metrics. Some people consider "Booted" to be after Vista's initial hard drive spinout after you log in (In other words, when you can fire up applications and get working). Others consider it to be when your computer shows you a log-in screen, and others still consider it to be the moment when all the system's crucial services have been started. The test in the article uses the log-in measurement.

What's "Faster Boot Speed" under one measurement may not be much of an improvement, or even a step backwards, for another. I for one am part of the "When I can do stuff" group.

And for that, there's really only so much you can do to improve boot speed. You can do a few nifty tricks like loading services and drivers in parallel, but that only gets you so far.

Computers can load 6 billion instructions per second, but to get to the point where you can do your daily tasks, you have a LOT of instructions you need to get through. It's not because "These newfangled operating systems are loaded with bloat!", but because we expect so much more out of our computers (and Operating Systems) than we did even 10 years ago.

The "Get to the login screen" standard is pretty easy to improve. Just ditch everything that isn't absolutely necessary for getting into the login screen, then load everything else after the user has logged in. But by any other standard, that's not really an improvement...

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456895)

The hard drive is really the limiting factor. There's just no getting around pulling say a GB worth of data off of it (to cover all your device drivers and core operating system, etc). That alone will cost you 10 seconds, which is roughly the time that it takes to resume from hibernate. Now, you could have a staged boot, where you bring up services as needed, which might give the illusion of a faster boot, while actually making you wait the same amount of time to ultimately do anything.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456905)

My old Atari could boot instantly! We could have the same now, except that nobody wants their OS on a chip.

Or do they? My guess is that nobody has put much effort into it. Maybe it's not considered a main selling point.

My machines actually boot pretty quickly. It's the waiting-for-desktop that's slow. Especially on the work laptop where the vendor has preloaded their useless helper apps.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1, Interesting)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456911)

This is one of my pet peeves: why can't computers boot in a second or less?

Why do computers need to reboot at all?

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (2, Informative)

RedHelix (882676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456917)

Asus has a few motherboards out there that offer an instant-on OS that'll take you to a web browser, skype client and a few other goodies. You aren't up in a *second* but it's pretty nice.

Re:Your Goal: One Second or Less (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456957)

Part of the problem is that we now expect the computer to detect new hardware. If you plug in a new Video card or monitor you expect the computer to find the hardware and start using it.

Oh YEAH? (4, Funny)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456513)

Well my TABLE LAMP boots in 50ms! Beat THAT!

(And to all you electrotech-people, yes, i live in Europe, 50Hz here. You may laugh now.)

Re:Oh YEAH? (4, Funny)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456565)

Well my TABLE LAMP boots in 50ms! Beat THAT!

Not using those new-fangled compact fluorescents, are you sonny?

Re:Oh YEAH? (5, Informative)

natebarney (987940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456593)

Maybe my math is wrong, but wouldn't that be 1 / (50 Hz) = 20ms?

Re:Oh YEAH? (5, Funny)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456653)

Well there you go, ruin all my fun with your silly math thingamabob. Thanks a lot!

Oh, and to whoever modded OP as insightful:
God damn it man, you need to leave your house once in a while.

Re:Oh YEAH? (5, Funny)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456821)

I have to admit, posting from your table lamp is quite impressive. What browser does it run?

Re:Oh YEAH? (1)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456871)

OmniWeb, obviously!

Welp, that about makes it for today's bad joke limit. I retreat to my underground sanctuary...

Re:Oh YEAH? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456979)

Lighthouse 1.8

I'd like to see Navigator not crash on the rocks without Lighthouse. The Safari would never happen. The Explorer would stay at home.

Yeah, I'll wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456555)

For service pack 2.

I booted up ubuntu just to post (5, Funny)

colin_n (50370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456559)

Booted into Ubuntu 9.04 just to say "first post". Let's just say the ubuntu folks still have some work to do.

Re: random capitalization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456723)

s = seconds
S = siemens (electrical conductance)

Re:I booted up ubuntu just to post (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457079)

Let's just say the ubuntu folks still have some work to do.

No shit... I don't care about the boot time, I just wish my sound wouldn't randomly stop working.

Backwards Compatible? (3, Interesting)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456567)

Is EXT4 backwards compatible with EXT2 and EXT3? (3 is backwards compatible with 2) I'm asking because there are only Windows drivers for EXT2, and this could cause problems for those that dual boot.

Re:Backwards Compatible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456647)

Not really. Unless you turn off extents.

Also: does "shred" work with it? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456665)

Is EXT4 backwards compatible with EXT2 and EXT3?

Also: Does "shred" work with it? (It works with EXT3 but only if journaling is disabled - which seems to defeat the purpose of the filesystem...)

Alternatively: Is there a replacement or upgrade for "shred" that would work with EXT4 and/or other journaling filesystems, or a "shred the free blocks" IOCTL?

Re:Also: does "shred" work with it? (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457073)

All you need to do is write gibberish to a file until the device is full then unlink the file, and do that repeatedly until your paranoia is satisfied.

Re:Backwards Compatible? (5, Informative)

linuxkrn (635044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456781)

For most users, no it will not work. One of the major features of ext4 is extents, which basically reserves space for a file to continue writing at a later date. This will decrease file fragmentation and improve performance.

If however, you disable extents, then yes you can mount it as ext3. And as you know, ext3 can be mounted as ext2 without the journaling.

I agree that the win32 ext2 drivers need updating. I would hate to lose access to ext partitions for dual boot systems.

Re:Backwards Compatible? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456847)

I think ext4 will mount with ext2fsd, if and only if you don't use extents. With extents on, there is no backwards compatibility to ext2 or 3.

This booting thing is overrated. (0, Troll)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456577)

When will they have suspend for Linux that Actually Works.

Re:This booting thing is overrated. (2, Informative)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456671)

You mean the suspend for Linux that Actually Worked that I just woke my computer out of ten minutes ago?

And that's with Ubuntu 8.04.

Re:This booting thing is overrated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26457031)

Yeah I had a problem with my laptop going into suspend when I was running ubunutu on it. I can't remember what version but I think it was a problem that showed up after 8.04 it just required a small edit and it worked fine. I can see why some users would be worried about having to do that, or you could just not have it go to standby why you close the lid and then just turn it off. Oh well.

Re:This booting thing is overrated. (1)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456749)

suspend works for me just fine. FC9 on an acer laptop. Suspends correctly via lid, menu selection, and sleep key. Wakes correctly from any keypress. Hibernate also works fine.

One thing though, the first time I tried it after clean install from disc, coming back from resume the terminal screens were mangled and could only see a corner of them, the rest being off screen. At some point in the last 4-5 months that stopped happening for me.

Get Intel hardware. (1)

Jeremy Visser (1205626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457027)

Not intending to troll, but if suspend doesn't work for you, it's your fault for buying hardware that doesn't support ACPI in a standard enough fashion to make it work.

Go Intel. If you get an Intel-based chipset with Intel graphics, suspend works beautifully. NVIDIA nForce chipsets also work, but are slightly less reliable.

Try and not blame Linux for suspend not working. Suspend already works. If it doesn't work, your motherboard manufacturer most likely hasn't bothered testing with Linux, and finding and squashing ACPI bugs.

Re:This booting thing is overrated. (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457047)

I got it to work in Ubuntu 8.10 on a HP 2133 netbook which has a crappy VIA chipset!

Sometimes Networking comes back up as disabled, and I need to re-enable it, and wait for it to connect to the wireless again.

reformat? (2, Insightful)

doti (966971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456625)

Converting an ext2 file system to ext3 takes a simple command, that runs instantly. It basically just add a flag that enable journaling.

Will ext4 be so different that it will not be possible to convert without reformatting?
That's would be a pain for the half-terabytes partitions we have today.

I hate to say it but.... (3, Informative)

CdBee (742846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456631)

.. that is more than twice as long as Windows 98SE took to boot on my Athlon 1ghz in 2001. 8 years development and we're still ass-whipped by 90s technology. Way to go....

Re:I hate to say it but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456827)

I have Windows XP SP3 on a laptop that boots in roughly 25 seconds. The question is how is "boot" defined. My laptop isn't usable for another 10 or 15 seconds as it's launching some stuff (particularly the OpenOffice background thingy). Something else to consider is that they used relatively current hardware to boot Ubuntu; my laptop is 2 or 3 years old, and even for the technology at the time it is somewhat outdated.

Re:I hate to say it but.... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456959)

You kids and your fancy under a minute boot times. Back in my day, it took all day to boot up. And that's after we had to wait a few hundred thousand years for the sand to become stone so that we could create our stone punchcards.

Re:I hate to say it but.... (2, Informative)

makapuf (412290) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456977)

try FreeDOS + GEM [wikipedia.org] on your Athlon and discuver the real power of 80's tech power.

Re:I hate to say it but.... (2, Insightful)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456981)

8 years development and we're still ass-whipped by 90s technology. Way to go....

I know you jest, but this almost amazes me too. On the converse side of it, ever try booting Win98, 95, or 3.1 on modern hardware?

Even as a person who shuts his computer down when he leaves it for more than a couple hours, while I would welcome faster booting machines, I'd prefer faster logons. Bootup in less than 30 seconds, which I've even got with Vista, is fine with me.

Logon, on the other hand, is finished whenever your machine decides to do all those things you told it to do that got queued up while you were waiting for it to become responsive, and is much, much more annoying.

NO MORE UBUNTU!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456641)

I Just don't care about Ubuntu anymore!
Sick of hearing about how great Ubuntu is!
Yes it's great, good for it let's move on, OK!

I only boot up my computer once or twice a month anyway, so i'd save like 2-4 minutes a month GOOD GOD!

Comparison times from article (5, Informative)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456657)

* Ubuntu 8.10 with EXT3 filesystem boots in 31.8 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT3 filesystem boots in 28.3 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT4 filesystem boots in 23.1 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system).

* Ubuntu 8.10 with EXT3 filesystem boots in 26.8 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT3 filesystem boots in 24.5 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT4 filesystem boots in 21.4 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system)!

Re:Comparison times from article (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456761)

So roughly a 20-25% improvement, when you update to Ubuntu 9 and EXT4. Why couldn't the summary say that, instead of giving "21.4 seconds" with no mention of the time being compared to or any mention of hardware. They could have just swapped a 5400RPM drive to a 10K. I know the editors can't be expected to read the articles, but can they at least make the posts somewhat meaningful?

A huge boost to my workplace productivity (2, Insightful)

trouser (149900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456675)

They've shaved 10 seconds off the boot time? In a typical working week that buys me 50 seconds more work time. I'll be so much more productive.

Re:A huge boost to my workplace productivity (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456865)

Yeah, but you have to think long term. After 10 years, you'll save 433 minutes! That's almost a full day's work! If you make 100K/yr, that's almost $400 of salary time wasted! The HORROR!

What does ext4 have to do with it? (2, Interesting)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456717)

My understanding is that ext4 provides some very nice features, but faster data access isn't necessarily one of them. I'd imagine that an ext2 fs, which doesn't have journaling to slow it down, should be even faster.

Re:What does ext4 have to do with it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456881)

You understand journaling only applies to writes? Sure, there's some log file writes on startup, but not much. Oh, and ext4 should be better about keeping things defragmented, which could explain the difference.

Generalized equation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26456731)

[operating system] version X.Y [Time period] [build] boots in n.q seconds.

Also I have a 15 mm penis.

disappointing... (5, Interesting)

sofar (317980) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456741)

This is a truly disappointing news item. Instead of setting the bar higher and truly trying to reduce boot time, they have not done much more than shave seconds off the existing boot time.

For a generic desktop distro, 20+ seconds is still terribly long. 10 seconds should realistically be easy to achieve, especially as it took Arjan and me only a few months to get to 5 seconds on a netbook. We sure cut some corners, but we did not even use ext4 on those netbooks, and we still had buggy X starting times of 1.5 seconds, something which we can probably do in 0.5 seconds with kernel modesetting.

I hate to see everyone settle down with "20 seconds" being "the next 5 second boot". This is really not progress at all, but rather, complacency.

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456773)

I don't mean to troll, but I could care less about boot up times. What I care about is uptime!

With Windows, you are always having to reboot the system due to everything from software installs to changing a network connection.

On Linux, I never have to reboot. Basically my desktop stays on unless I am taking a long weekend. I understand that efficiency is good, however, a fast boot-up does not seem like news to me.

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456953)

With Windows, you are always having to reboot the system due to everything from software installs to changing a network connection.

No, you aren't. This hasn't been true since Windows XP, at least. I can get uptimes of months at a time on my Windows box, the only time it comes down is for hardware changes or OS updates.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Jeremy Visser (1205626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457071)

Not everyone gets their electricity for free, or lives in a country where the cost is negligible. Argentina, for instance.

ON WHAT HARDWARE? (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456791)

ON WHAT HARDWARE? That number is meaningless unless we know the specifications.

Re:ON WHAT HARDWARE? (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456921)

Nevermind, the article explains everything in detail. I was trigger happy there for a moment.

What exactly is the definition of boot? (4, Insightful)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456833)

What exactly is the definition of boot?

When I start up my IBM ThinkPad (1.5ghz single processor, 512RAM, garbage video card) running Windows XP, it takes roughly 10-15 seconds to get to the user log-in interface from the moment the power button is pressed.

But, once you log in, you are talking two to three minutes where background applications and processes are opening, explorer is loading, and applications that launch at start are loading.

After you log in does that time count as boot time? Considering it takes me 10-15 seconds to get to the sign in screen, not that much time, but after logging in it takes well over two minutes for me to be able to actually run anything at normal capacity.

ext4 (2, Informative)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456989)

However, the good news is that the EXT4 filesystem was implemented in the upcoming Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha 3 a couple of days ago and it will be available in the Ubuntu Installer, if you choose manual partitioning.' I guess it's finally time to reformat my /home partition..."

From what I understand, there's no need to reformat. Similar to how EXT3 was layered on top of EXT2, EXT4 should just be another mount option as long as the kernel supports it.

I have a couple EXT4 partitions I'm testing... It's been rock-solid so far...

Ask the right question . . . (2, Informative)

bogidu (300637) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456993)

and you may get a relevant answer.

The question is what do you want the computer (or appliance) to be able to do after that four second boot? All the supporting software to do all the whizbang stuff (games, graphics, etc) takes time to load.

I decided awhile back that I simply wanted a device that I could power up quickly, surf the web, check email, oh, and had to be portable. Just last month I got such a device. It powers on instantly, finds and connects to wi-fi rapidly, the browser opens quickly, etc. It does exactly what I needed it to do. It's an IPOD Touch. First Apple product I've ever owned, so I'm not exactly an Apple advocate, but it does the bloody job.

So, back to the OP, I'll ask the same question that I ask every person who comes up and asks me what kind of computer they should get. . . . . what do you want it to do?

why the obession with boot time? (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457011)

boot time as a whole is fuck all total delay in your time spent on a computer, so who fucking cares. lets work on larger cheaper solid state drives please.

Re:why the obession with boot time? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457041)

Especially if you use Sleep, or to a lesser extent, Hibernate... a pseudo-boot time of 2.5 seconds is much nicer than 21 :)

Let me get this of my chest... (4, Interesting)

jernejk (984031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26457017)

I've been using Ubuntu for I year. I was quite happy with the 8.4, but unfortunately I've switched to 8.10 64bit (to support 4GB RAM). You know what? I couldn't care less about how fast it boots. I do, however, care about these things:
- switching from dual display to presentation (clone) and back totally messes up x config, I have to uninstall and reinstall nvidea drivers
- in dual screen mode, nautilus opens on the first display. I have to open terminal and run nautilus& to lunch it on the second display
- in dual screen mode, keyboard keeps focus in the previous screen. I have to minimize/maximize a windows on the "new" screen to move keyboard focus
- RDP client crashes X windows in some cases (it does not close the drop down list of used servers... and bang)
- oh and NO it's not AN ERROR if I close the RDP window. If I want to reconnect, I will, don't hide under my active windows and bring RDP windows back in 30 seconds. That's just plain stupid.
- java and window decorations don't play well together (popups without buttons etc.)
- How about opening a connection to a new server in a new tab, not in a new nautilus window?
- Flash stops working. I just see a gray square where flash is supposed to be.
- Firefox is not very stable.
- Windows would become gray and unresponsive when there's a lot of disk activity.
- I've seen ubuntu crash on my much more times than I've seen BSOD on the same HW.
- If i lock my computer, I want it to be locked. I don't want it to be locked for a minute or so and than display what was last on my desktop. Sure, you'd have to log in to get access, but there could be things for my eyes only on that screen. So don't you ever roll eyes on windows security, ok? You've got your own issues.

I could probably think of more but this is just a list of things I remember from the top of my head. Sure, you'll be downmoding me and say I'm trolling. Maybe I am. But my point is: there are MUCH more IMPORTANT things to fix than the FUCKING BOOT TIME. Who the fuck even cares about boot time?? Can't you just grab a coffee while it boots? What kind of idiotic metric is this?

I guess SW development is hard and complex. And we've reached a point where maintaining these beasts is hard, for either open source or commercial products.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...