Beta
×

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!

Embedded Linux Achieves One-Second Boot Time

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the all-it-does-is-operate-the-power-button dept.

Linux Business 164

Sam writes "A new goalpost has been set in the race for faster bootup times. MontaVista Software announced (and demonstrated at the Virtual Freescale Technology Forum) a dashboard application going from cold boot to operational in one second flat on their embedded Linux platform. Although this is unlikely to immediately benefit your average Linux user, previous real-time patches have eventually made their way into the main kernel."

cancel ×

164 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice text color (1, Insightful)

lpcustom (579886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706285)

That site should just switch to white text. It's like everyone keeps going a shade lighter. Apparently they are racist and have something against black.

Re:Nice text color (4, Funny)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706453)

It isn't the black itself that gets to them it is the black on white action.

Re:Nice text color (5, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706477)

They just want to simulate the effect of printing marketing materials on a worn-out laser printer in need of toner because that looks sooooo professional.

Nothing says we're professionals and have important information for you like a crooked illegible photocopy except perhaps a grade-school spirit duplicator. Expect funky light purple text next. The holy grail, of course, will be a wrinkled paper background that actually makes it look like they dug the web page back out of the trash and gave it to you.

Re:Nice text color (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706611)

Whether or not you like his writing, I think Maddox hit the peak of usable web design: dark background, with large-font bright text. If you don't like the yellow, you could go with old-CLI-style green. Either way, it's the easiest webpage on the internet to read.

Re:Nice text color (2, Funny)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707835)

What are you talking about? On my monitor his site is shown with the same amber colour like any other.

Awesome! (0)

isolovelinux (1598555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706291)

This is such a step forward for Linux! Now that they have it working, the coders can optimize it and backport it to other platforms! This is just the beginning of something amazing for Open Source. I'll try to integrate the changes on my quad core C2D--it takes 29 seconds to boot right now. GO LINX!!!

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706357)

Probably they should. I have never seen one single credible justification for over 1 second boot time for any desktop operating system.

The tasks the kernel (and later userland) does at the startup are mostly irrelevant. Yes, those features and tasks are mandatory. They just most of the time are not mandatory THEN. 99% of the fine features of the Linux kernel are actually required later. Also our applications commit the same sins.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706815)

Probably they should. I have never seen one single credible justification for over 1 second boot time for any desktop operating system.

I don't think the eventual target is desktops.

From TFA:

For industrial automation and other similar applications, fast boot and response time is critical to successful operation. Applications must be fully operational at power on and cannot be delayed due to the volatile nature of the platform and environment. Variables such as power fluctuation, network failure, device availability, and memory management must be responded to with no loss of performance and functionality. These same demanding requirements are found not just in Industrial Automation applications, but automotive, aerospace, and military applications as well.

I can see other reasons for linux based kernel devices like web/net appliances, game consoles, cell phones, etc... to have really low boot times.

Re:Awesome! (1)

MeatBag PussRocket (1475317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707601)

Probably they should. I have never seen one single credible justification for over 1 second boot time for any desktop operating system.

I don't think the eventual target is desktops.

From TFA:

For industrial automation and other similar applications, fast boot and response time is critical to successful operation. Applications must be fully operational at power on and cannot be delayed due to the volatile nature of the platform and environment. Variables such as power fluctuation, network failure, device availability, and memory management must be responded to with no loss of performance and functionality. These same demanding requirements are found not just in Industrial Automation applications, but automotive, aerospace, and military applications as well.

I can see other reasons for linux based kernel devices like web/net appliances, game consoles, cell phones, etc... to have really low boot times.

add to that list automobiles, GPS systems, and the like. IIRC the Bugatti Veron has win CE

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706429)

I know you're taking the piss but the problem is x86 hardware is so crap it often takes a full 20 seconds before the boot sector is even touched. 1 second boot will never be possible on this shitty hardware until you rewrite the bios.

Re:Awesome! (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706571)

well, there is an open source bios project, so that doesn't have to be the problem.

Re:Awesome! (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706941)

The BIOS isn't always the problem... if it takes three seconds for the video card to become usable (fans running, memory initialized, etc), you're not going to get less than a three-second perceived boot time, no matter how fast you make everything else happen. The same goes for other hardware. If they happen in series (or worse, if they have to happen in series), then that can add up - that can be mitigated by the BIOS, of course, but I can see why boot times might get longer.

I've also heard that it can take a few seconds for modern CPUs just to stabilize to a usable state when they're powered on. This may or may not be true; I'm not a hardware engineer. However, if it is true, then between this and other hardware initialization time we may not ever see sub-ten-second boot times.

I'd settle for a sub-60-second boot time... and I'm running the latest and greatest (i7 920, 12GB RAM, GTX 285...), so discounting hardware initialization time, the hardware is certainly *capable* of quick boot times. As it is, my computer takes nearly two minutes to get to a logon screen (whether that's Gentoo or Windows 7).

Re:Awesome! (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707683)

1 second boot will never be possible on this shitty hardware until you rewrite the bios.

So rewrite the bios. Fastboot BIOS:An Investigation of BIOS Speed Enhancement Featuring the Intel Atom Processor [intel.com]

On the other hand, perhaps the authors cheated.

During the boot process, the BIOS provides an opportunity for the user to hit a hot key that
terminates the boot process and instead displays a menu used to modify various platform settings.
This includes settings such as boot order, disabling various processor or chipset features, modifying
media parameters, etc. On an embedded device, BIOS setup (and any similar settings provided by
an operating system loader) is more of a liability since it gives the end-user access to BIOS
features that are potentially untested on the device. It is better to have a set of setup options that
may be chosen at BIOS build time. Removal of BIOS setup also saves significant BIOS post time.

Re:Awesome! (3, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706597)

Yeah, but you know you're really cool when you have no idea how long it takes to boot your machine. After all, you only do it once. ;-)

Re:Awesome! (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707159)

Meh. My macbook pro is so damned cool I don't boot it. I just think "I'd like to check slashdot" and in the blink of an eye, slashdot it open, I'm logged in, and sitting at preview for a +5 funny comment.

It's truly amazing.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707203)

sadly, my macbook pro doesn't check grammar or proper sentence structure. ;-/

woah, slow down there cowboy, it's been 69 (Dude!) seconds since you last posted. You're likely to be eaten by a grue.

Re:Awesome! (1)

B00KER (1359329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707705)

Macbook PRO could be Magic, but an instantaneous +5 funny comment on /. Come on. You must be new here.

Finally (4, Funny)

2names (531755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706307)

I can post before I log in.

Re:Finally (1)

sigxcpu (456479) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706489)

This just shows you, some people will go to great lengths, just to get a first post!

Re:Finally (1)

Vandilizer (201798) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706557)

But my computer always POST before I can login...

Re:Finally (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706671)

eh I prefer Honey Bunches of Oats. [postcereals.com]

Been there, done that (3, Informative)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706311)

I'm surprised that this is news. I remember working a few years ago on booting Linux (also the MontaVista version) in 600 million cycles flat, which for a CPU running at 600 MHz, is exactly one second as well.

You can even still: watch a video of this here [eve-team.com]

Re:Been there, done that (4, Interesting)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706799)

How many of those 600 million cycles are performing operations as opposed to waiting for IO and memory access?

How many operations does it take to boot Linux?

It's 1980 all over again (5, Interesting)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706317)

Impressive and would be a huge improvement over the current state of things.

But then again, my 1Mhz Apple ][ could cold boot in just a couple seconds.Of course, loading Applesoft Basic from tape took an additional two minutes but Integer Basic was in the ROM.

Michael Abrash wrote a great article about this in Dr. Dobbs magazine in the 90s. His young daughter (5 years old?) asked him why he never used his "fast" computer. Abrash was using a state-of-the-art 266mhz DX2 powerhouse and couldn't figure out what she meant. She was referring to the old Vic-20 in the corner that would boot in just a few seconds. Windows 3.0 took several minutes to load. IIRC, the article was titled "perception is everything"

32Bit Amigas. (0)

yossarianuk (1402187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706445)

Or the 90's - My Amiga 1200 booted into workbench in about 3 seconds .

Re:32Bit Amigas. (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707025)

That's nothing. My Atari 2600 booted into COMBAT before my finger left the POWER lever. And a few seconds later my 3 little green planes were beating the shit out of poor sap flying the big pink plane.

Re:It's 1980 all over again (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706777)

I wonder how much of the boot slowdown has to do with architectural change(loading from slow disk to plentiful RAM vs. small amount of RAM and lots of stuff burned into ROM, the rise of networking as a more or less assumed part of the boot process, increase in the number of highly complex peripherals that need to be negotiated with), and how much has to do with the OS gradually grabbing more of what applications historically had to do(DOS loaded like the wind; but didn't actually load very much).

Re:It's 1980 all over again (1)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707081)

I wonder how much of the boot slowdown has to do with architectural change

None of it - at least not the architecture you're meaning (ROM vs. HD loading)

The post above yours talked about an A1200 that booted in 3 seconds - from hard drive.

I had an A3000 that booted from HD in 6 seconds - and it was only that slow because it loaded up drivers for my network card, set up TCP/IP, initialized the (additional) display card, and a bunch of other things (desktop customization.)

Loading off disk isn't the issue.

Re:It's 1980 all over again (3, Informative)

noname444 (1182107) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707007)

A DX2, at 266 MHz, in the early 90s? If this is an Intel 486 we're talking about I think you've gotten the numbers a bit wrong. Mine ran at 33 MHz.

Re:It's 1980 all over again (4, Informative)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707023)

FACT NAZI Observation: The 486DX came in 20, 25, 33 or if you were unlucky 50Mhz variants. Consequently a clock doubled (DX2) 486 was not capable of anything close to 266Mhz. That wasn't achieved until the Tillamook-Pentium much later.

Re:It's 1980 all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707631)

I encountered a 486DX at 125MHZ. Of course a Pentium 90MHZ was still faster (clock speed isn't everything).

That's pretty cool... (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706341)

Though the fact that this is an embedded device with, most likely, a REALLY stripped down version of Linux is kind of cheating a bit.

Re:That's pretty cool... (5, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706437)

CoreBoot (formerly known as LinuxBIOS) will boot a full Linux kernel on a general-purpose machine in 3 seconds. Ok, it's two seconds longer, but it ain't bad.

Re:That's pretty cool... (1)

C18H27NO3 (1282172) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706533)

_Only_ 2 seconds longer??! That's a 300% increase in boot time! Nobody has the time to wait for that.

Re:That's pretty cool... (2, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706573)

No, it's a 200% increase.

Re:That's pretty cool... (2, Informative)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706603)

It's 300% of the old boottime, which is a 200% increase.

Re:That's pretty cool... (1)

C18H27NO3 (1282172) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706741)

Yeah, I fat-fingered the number and didn't notice it on preview.

Re:That's pretty cool... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708017)

So what you're saying is that your message booted too quickly.

Re:That's pretty cool... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706507)

Embedded apps often run on a stripped down embedded system, so for that context, the test is fair.

Re:That's pretty cool... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28708251)

The thing with an embedded device is that the hardware is known. The boot sequence can skip hardware detection and it can be customized to only deal with what is specifically installed.

Not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706343)

Linux has insane uptime. I can usually keep my box on indefinitely. I'll only turn it off when I accidentally pull out the cord when I'm reaching behind my desk or when I blow a fuse by running the microwave, toaster, and dishwasher at the same time. Why have such a quick boot time when you hardly need to boot in the first place?

Re:Not needed (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706397)

Some people (including myself) are kind of anal about turning things off when they're not being used. On the other hand, a lot of people also just turn on their computer and walk away to get something to eat/drink/use the restroom while the machine boots, so it isn't really a big problem.

Re:Not needed (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706411)

A computer sitting idle needlessly consumes power. A computer switched off doesn't.

Re:Not needed (1)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706497)

A computer which is frequently powered on and off wears through components much more quickly (thermal stress). A computer that is running 24/7 does not. Better yet, a computer that is off 24/7 has no issues at all.

Re:Not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707211)

Dude, how many computers you have actually worn to end? That'd be the first I hear about.

Re:Not needed (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707777)

HDD's break MUCH more often if power cycled frequently, as do power supplies and fans.

Re:Not needed (5, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706443)

I'll bite.

Some of us want to run laptops, netbooks and other devices where the ability to shut down completely and then turn on quickly, using zero battery in the meantime would be very useful.

Re:Not needed (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706787)

It would still take considerable amounts of time to write all the ram to disk and read it back again.

Re:Not needed (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707107)

The simple solution, of course, is to add in, say, 4GB of flash storage to laptop motherboards for exclusive use in hibernation. It could also double as swap space during normal usage.

Even as it is, my laptop comes out of hibernation in five seconds or so (in Windows); it doesn't take very long for your average hard drive to spam your data back into RAM (assuming I had a lot running when I went into hibernation).

Re:Not needed (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707115)

Whoops, that last parenthetical comment was from my first draft ^_^

Re:Not needed (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707231)

It sort of already exists [wikipedia.org] , but it's not used as you suggest (yet). It would be nice if it were one drive with two virtual drives, separately accessible. MSI has a netbook with both SSD and HDD [osnews.com] (seperate). Provided you could select where windows stores it's hibernate data (don't know, don't use windows), you could probably accomplish what you suggest fairly easily.

Re:Not needed (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707375)

You can indeed select the location/drive for the hibernation data (which is just a file on the filesystem).

Re:Not needed (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707447)

I guess the only thing to worry about then is the limited amount of writes on an SSD disk, it's one critical weakness.

Re:Not needed (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707579)

With how quickly the price of SSDs are coming down, I wouldn't worry about it. You'd just replace the drive. And if cost is a concern, someone wouldn't be considering the idea in the first place.

Re:Not needed (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707737)

That limitation is effectively irrelevant [storagesearch.com] . And that article is from 2006. And it accounts for the case of constant, high speed writing; hibernating out to disk happens a few times a day, and as such is barely noticeable.

Think about it. Lets say you've got a crappy flash drive: Only 1 million writes per sector. And it's exactly the size of your main RAM, so no wear leveling algorithm will help. If woke up and hibernate that machine 100 times per day, it would still last 10,000 days, or 27.4 years. That's slightly longer than I've been alive; I think I could live with a hard drive that "only" lasted that long.

Re:Not needed (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707657)

Even desktop users who use linux often have to dual boot into windows. Sometimes virtual machines or wine is good enough for what you want, but for something like games or software that couples closely to hardware (e.g. AnyDVD or most games), this doesn't work. Having a faster boot on linux makes switching between OSes nicer. On my machine my Debian it's already faster than Vista (I forgot by how much, I'll have to remeasure it), and that's including running some slow services at startup for linux like uploading firmware for an HD card and starting the smartd.

Re:Not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28708181)

You really do bite.

Re:Not needed (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706683)

I can't wait until I get a powerful desktop machine that has an idle power draw low enough that I'd get no noticeable benefit to my electric bill by turning the machine off.

Re:Not needed (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707403)

Google for Pico ITX. I believe full-tilt consumption is something like 30 watts, which is about double the power consumption of a compact fluorescent bulb. Assuming you leave it running all the time, and your electricity is 7 cents/kwH, your power bill every month for it would be $1.50 (assuming 30watt draw). $1.50 is not really noticeable on an electric bill when you take into account delivery charges and taxes.

Re:Not needed (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707419)

My bad, you said *powerful* desktop. What I mentioned would take care of most day to day tasks, but probably not re-encoding video or playing high end games.

Re:Not needed (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706759)

It wasn't done for desktop machines and servers. It was meant for embedded devices. Think pocket mp3 players and industrial control devices.

Re:Not needed (1)

pz (113803) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706829)

Linux has insane uptime. I can usually keep my box on indefinitely. I'll only turn it off when I accidentally pull out the cord when I'm reaching behind my desk or when I blow a fuse by running the microwave, toaster, and dishwasher at the same time.

Why have such a quick boot time when you hardly need to boot in the first place?

Because, in my experience, laptops are far less well-supported and far less reliable. My desktop machine currently has 100+ days of uptime, and the last power cycle was because of a scheduled power outage in the building. That uptime is typical for my desktops. In contrast, my laptop rarely goes more than a couple of days without needing a reboot because some driver or another gets into a fubar state. I use my desktop 8-10 hours per day, and my laptop 1-2 hours per day, so factor that in as well.

Couple that experience (which has been repeated over a number of desktops and a number of laptops, so I don't think is exceptional) with the fact that laptops are, I believe, outselling desktops and you have a need for quick boot times.

Also, Linux coming out of hibernation is dog slow. Doooooooooooggggggggg slow. It's far faster to boot up from scratch, for my laptop at least, and have to re-initialize my workspace than it is to wait for the RAM image to load from disk.

Re:Not needed (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707057)

If you dual boot between Linux and Windows, like I do, quick boot times are important. I often find myself just staying in Windows to do things I would be better off doing in Linux because I don't want to wait for the computer to reboot. Waiting for Windows to shut down and then waiting for Linux to boot up takes a while (in terms of attention span). I already have a hard enough time motivating myself to be productive at home ;)

On an unrelated note... why are your microwave, toaster, dishwasher, and computer all on the same circuit? Do you plug your computer in in your kitchen? :P

Re:Not needed (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707829)

Dual boot? Didn't that go away when free virtualization became available?

Re:Not needed (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707931)

Some of us like playing Windows games (and not via Wine).

Re:Not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28708275)

some of us actually like having the maximum performance possible

Does it matter all that much? (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706369)

Okay, I haven't been using desktop Linux on a day to day basis since around 2003; but even then, sleeping and hibernating worked reasonably well - so I didn't reboot all that often. On my Mac, the only time I reboot is when an update forces me to. So (serious question) why is faster boot times all that important? I wouldn't think devices w/ embedded Linux would shut down regularly, but maybe I'm wrong...

Re:Does it matter all that much? (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706459)

I wouldn't think devices w/ embedded Linux would shut down regularly, but maybe I'm wrong...

Certainly you don't want them to shut down regularly, but if it does spontaneously shut down for some reason (power interruption comes to mind) then getting your embedded device back online fast may be very important, depending on the importance of the embedded device in your system.

Re:Does it matter all that much? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706657)

Depends on the type of embedded device, I suspect.

In extremely broad terms, there is "embedded" as in "essentially always on" which covers things like routers, NAS boxes, LOM cards, and watches; and "embedded" as in "should turn on and off as fast as the device it is embedded in" which covers things like TV electronic program guide systems, car engine computers, and the like. The line between the two can be rather blurry(my cellphone is on most of the day, to receive work calls; but waiting 40ish seconds when I just need a single phone number after hours annoys me, so it could fall in either category. And computers fall in one or the other largely depending on how you use them); but, depending on your taste, you can come up with one.

For the first class; boot time isn't a giant deal. All else being equal, I'd rather have my router reboot in 2 seconds rather than 90 seconds; but I wouldn't pay much money for such a feature(and the sort of people who would pay any nontrivial amount would likely be better off with a redundant router instead). For the second class, though, the faster the better(especially since embedded systems often don't have any good way of signalling progress to the outside world, they are either visibly working or not, and having no progress indicator makes waits seem much longer).

Re:Does it matter all that much? (1)

Stray7Xi (698337) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707287)

Outside consumer devices it could be even more important, such as solar-powered wireless sensors. For example, every hour it powers on an embedded device which transmits the data back to a server then powers down. The boot time has real effects on power requirements. Which is either solved by larger solar panel ($$$) or fewer updates.

Re:Does it matter all that much? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706971)

My phone gets no reception at work, so I turn it off. I turn it on again when I leave, and I usually need to use it at that time. It's frustrating that it takes longer to boot my phone than to actually make the phone call.

Re:Does it matter all that much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707153)

It really depends on what the particular Linux computer is embedded in. As some have said, a phone that takes forever to boot up is frustrating. When it comes to an appliance that's left on most of the time, boot times are less important. But consider an embedded computer in a modern airplane. If you're having a catastrophic failure that makes a critical computer reboot, the time it takes to come back up can literally be the difference between life and death.

Surf internet in 1 second? (2)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706467)

Give me a call when they can go from off to Google in less than 1 second. (OS boot, wireless initialization, browser start, google reply). Shoot, I would be impressed with 10 seconds.

Re:Surf internet in 1 second? (1)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706509)

I wonder what Google's OS boot time is...

Re:Surf internet in 1 second? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706707)

My gaming workstation at home goes from off to Windows XP desktop in 9 seconds. Minimal POST, no pagefile, auto-login, 4-HDDs striped, yadda yadda. If I put FF in the startup folder, your 10 second requirement would be met. Of course, it's a bad disk just waiting to happen, but it loads games faster than my wii or xbox.

Re:Surf internet in 1 second? (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707213)

Somewhat off-topic, but related to your post... my gaming machine takes forever to boot. Part of the problem is that when it's powered off, and I push the power button, it spends ten seconds just spinning the fans before the BIOS POST screen shows up. I have minimal POST enabled, but I suspect the issue is my video card's initialization (which, presumably, must finish before the BIOS can initialize and display its POST screen). My machine has a Core i7 920, an MSI X58 Platinum motherboard, 12GB RAM, and a GeForce GTX 285. Any ideas?

Re:Surf internet in 1 second? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707313)

Yeah, but XP cheats. It sticks up the XP desktop, then wanders off to actually start up all the services required to actually do anything.

Re:Surf internet in 1 second? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707019)

Here [slashdot.org] . Though the latency and bandwidth suck.

Re:Surf internet in 1 second? (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707165)

That might be kinda hard, considering that in my experience it takes no less than five seconds, and sometimes as long as twenty seconds, for the wireless card to complete a connection with the router, especially if there's encryption involved.

You're also assuming that latency is trivial. That's probably an invalid assumption in the most common use case for the sort of machine where this would be useful (i.e. netbooks getting online via 3G or similar).

Linux makes airplanes faster (-1, Flamebait)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706469)

This will speed up all those security checks at airports where people have to boot their laptops.

Of course it will be years before this technology actually gets there. I just liked the subject line.

Re:Linux makes airplanes faster (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706853)

I fly a *lot* and I haven't had to do that in a very long time (it's in suspend all the time just in case).

Re:Linux makes airplanes faster (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708035)

I fly a *lot* and I haven't had to do that in a very long time (it's in suspend all the time just in case).

I flew with 4 co-workers last week, and 3 of us had to boot our laptops. All had our laptops and/or laptop cases swabbed.
One of us had to take off his shoes and socks, and submit to having the waistband of his pants searched by hand.

I love the theater...

Direct link to MontaVista Video on YouTube (5, Informative)

Qubit (100461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706479)

The video was hard to find on the given links. One of them even had the audacity to ask me to log in to view it. Yeah, as if.

One Second Linux Boot Demonstration (new version) [youtube.com]

Also, kudos on the music choice. The wah-wah pedal in the opening music really gives the tech demo that "porn soundtrack" feel I know you were going for.

Re:Direct link to MontaVista Video on YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706655)

2.27 minutes, 1 second to boot and 2:26 of advertising promo and not nearly as entertaining as Monkey Boy Balmer, the speaker is rather bland....

Windows 7 And OS X both do this already. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706513)

It's called SLEEP, and the two properly written operating systems do it perfectly every time. As usual, Linux (the open source operating system for losers) cannot do even the most basic things properly.

Open Source FAIL.
Closed Source FTW!

Re:Windows 7 And OS X both do this already. (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706631)

Poor attempt at trolling. Get your facts straight at least.

Re:Windows 7 And OS X both do this already. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706823)

If XP is supposed to be how power management is done, I will pass.

It's faster to just reboot the box into Linux.

Re:Windows 7 And OS X both do this already. (1)

gigabites2 (1484115) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706921)

I don't know about everyone else, but my Kubuntu installation suspends/sleeps perfectly. The Windows 7 RC installation on the other hand... Yeah, yeah; something about anecdotes meaning nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Moblin (0)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706715)

Well, Moblin, who boots the fastest, NOW?

Moot (0)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706813)

Does anyone reading /. even remember the last time they booted their workstation? I would definitely have to check my uptime and do the math to know.

Having said that, this would be great for things like laptops, netbooks, pdas, etc. Things that run from battery most of the time... might decrease battery usage thus increasing actual usage time.

Re:Moot (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706981)

During the summer I shut down my desktop daily. Besides the electricity used directly, it also means my AC has to work harder to keep a certain temperature.

I'd love to have a reasonably powerful desktop machine that idles at 20W or less, but for now it idles at 100W, and that's quite a bit of heat to be needlessly generated in a small apartment in the summer.

Re:Moot (1)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707381)

Depends on your definition of "reasonably powered", but this [mitxpc.com] has a dual-core 1.6 gHz Atom processor and nVidia graphics, certainly pulls less than 30w in idle, and has no fans so coupled with SSD storage would be completely silent. Also has a kit to hang it on the back of an LCD so it would be pretty invisible as well.

Re:Moot (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707553)

Depends on what kind of $$ you have, but you could do what I do in my house:

The wife and I share a laptop. 90% of our activity revolves around using the laptop to browse and chat with friends. The other 10% I can walk over and use my desktop - or, if I'm particularly lazy but need the raw HP for something, I can turn it on using WOL and VNC/RDP to it. My desktop PC generally remains off then, and the laptop (when full on battery) only uses 15-20 watts. And it's not a particularly new laptop, either.

I had 4 second boot with uClinux in 2001. (1)

cellurl (906920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706837)

At the time, I bragged 4 seconds (real application running) was the industry fastest with out gizmo, Blabbermouth [archive.org]

What I want to see is 0seconds using Flash. eg. run out of flash and just stop the clock! Then resume it. That has to work, right?

i wanna see! (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707189)

i want to see what the kernel .config and rc.xxx files that load at boot time look like

Completely overrated and someone else did it first (3, Insightful)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707699)

I'm working as an embedded driver software engineer and setup our company's OpenEmbedded build system to provide an end-to-end build environment for our embedded offering and while I can't find the link at the moment -- the one second boot time has been done before and was posted on TI's OMAP developer site a while ago. If I remember correctly it's mostly about U-Boot and how it copies the kernel into memory (byte by byte as opposed to streaming it) which is where you get the majority of your time decrease.

Either way, MontaVista is not the first on this one and it's a shame they're pretending they are.

The one second boot time is also never going to benefit regular PCs as they achieve it due to the nature of embedded systems -- you build a distro for your specific hardware which means no probing, none of that BIOS junk. No looking for the 'first' boot device.. U-Boot can be configured to automatically jump to the booting phase so you're already faster there. Beyond that, load and decompress your kernel (it'd be faster if your kernel wasn't compressed too wouldn't it?)..

So, chalk this up to having a kernel built specifically for your hardware and a boot-loader that is set to only boot one way, ever.

Canon Cameras (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707905)

I just curious what's in my Canon camera. It also boots in a very short time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>