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!

Booting Linux Faster

CowboyNeal posted more than 11 years ago | from the every-little-bit dept.

IBM 625

krony writes "IBM's DeveloperWorks explains how to decrease boot times for your Linux box. The concept is to load system services in parallel when possible. Most surprising to me is the use of 'make' to handle dependencies between services." The example system shown is able to cut its boot time in half, but the article stresses the effectiveness can vary widly from machine to machine.

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

Don't forget... (-1, Offtopic)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998829)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998833)

you sir bring a tear to my eye.

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998842)

they mod it down almost as fast as he posts it.

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998845)

yeah we do, bitch

Re:Don't forget... BSD is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998923)

It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

FIFTH POST (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998839)

Linux sucks nigger balls

Re:FIFTH POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998874)

A prime example of why AnonCow accounts need to banned ...

Re:FIFTH POST (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998958)

You cock-suckers cant do the job and pay licance, now let the real people to do the real work and hey, why dont you keep kissing someone's ass to do the job for you..

Trolls need love too (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998844)

I'm sure this will be controversial, but trolls need love too. In fact, trolls probably need more love than your average slashbot - slashbots get positive reinforcement, after all.

There. I've stated the painful truth: trolls need love. Now let me tell you why.

Most of us were abused as children, or are being abused now, or have suffered mightily in some way. We have self esteem problems, we don't have confidence, we don't feel loved. We want positive attention and all the things "normal" people have, but we feel like we are unworthy of it.

An old saying rings true here: "If the only potato chip a hungry child can have is a soggy potato chip, there is nothing more important to that child than the soggy potato chip." Well, that describes us trolls perfectly. We are hungry for attention and all we know is that we do not warrant positive attention, so we type "fristus postus" and post goatse links [goatse.cx] and shoot for the negative potato chip of a (-1 Troll), or a (-1 lamebait). Off-yopic and redundant mods are like half a soggy potato chip - just enough to whet the appetite for more.

So do the world a favor. end the cycle of abuse. Mod one troll - just one, that's all it takes - up, and you will be rewarded for life because you gave a hungry child a dry potato chip. Share the love, won't you?

Faster Booting (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998847)

I don't feel like reading the article. My WinXPHome system boots even faster than linux. Especially since I have auto-login as Administrator/admin. Post your thoughts please.

Re:Faster Booting (1, Flamebait)

dpw2atox (627453) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998891)

well its a good thing windows boots fast.....you gotta reboot the damn thing enough :-P

Re:Faster Booting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998949)

then you must run some really broken hardware, because i can run it for months without a reboot. and usually then i'm only doing it to install fixes to the OS.

Long uptimes on linux machines only tell me one thing - you don't update your kernel!

Re:Faster Booting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6999008)

Long uptimes on Windows machines only tell me one thing - you sure have some kick-ass worm breeding ground !

Re:Faster Booting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998977)

"well its a good thing windows boots fast.....you gotta reboot the damn thing enough :-P"

Ya I agree especially if Linux users want to play leading edge games like Half Life 2 :-P

Re:Faster Booting (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998913)

Oh come on. That is about the most half-assed troll I've seen in a while. Please try again. Or, better yet... please don't.

dumbass...

Re:Faster Booting (2, Insightful)

taxtropel (637994) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998994)

9 second boot time from power-up to X-windows

nice! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998848)

You mean, like windows XP has already been doing automaticly for over a year?

I love linux, it's yesterdays ideas, today!

boot? (0, Offtopic)

willeg (110442) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998849)

I rarely have to boot ever after the first boot and patch!

ms dos boot 2 seconds (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998901)

get with the program linux

Re:boot? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998956)

Recompile the kernel?

REBOOT!

HA HA HA HA, say goodbye to your precious 192-day uptime!

Re:boot? (5, Insightful)

kcurtis (311610) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999033)

> I rarely have to boot ever after the first boot and patch!

Probably true. But one goal of linux is to become the predominant desktop/laptop OS.

I work for a public school system. I'd rather not have all these computers eating up power all night when they're not being used.

In most work environments, pc's get turned off over night, and sometimes even at lunch.

This is one more way someone is helping to make Linux a better candidate for your casual end user.

Predicted response (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998850)

"Who cares how long it takes to boot Linux? My uptime is 400 days!!!"

Yup.. just keep talking about that and wonder why Linux never becomes mainstream.

Re:Predicted response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998978)

"Who cares how long it takes to boot Linux? My uptime is 400 days!!!"

Yup.. just keep talking about that and wonder why Linux never becomes mainstream.


You're right. The general public hates stability.

Re:Predicted response (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6999017)

Yup.. just keep talking about that and wonder why Linux never becomes mainstream.

Because mainstream means rebooting every day! Twice on Sundays.

Re:Predicted response (1)

Skreech (131543) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999022)

skreech@tycho:~$ uname -a
Linux tycho 2.4.17 #1 Sat Dec 22 12:37:19 CST 2001 i686 unknown
skreech@tycho:~$ uptime
18:07:35 up 419 days, 22:56, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00

Sitting nicely behind a firewall, and running Debian Sarge.

Re:Predicted response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6999039)

skreech@tycho:~$ uptime
18:07:35 up 419 days, 22:56, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00


That sure is a stressed system you got there, mate.

in soviet russia (-1, Funny)

phaetonic (621542) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998853)

windows boots faster

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998863)

hes funny

Re:in soviet russia (-1, Offtopic)

phaetonic (621542) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998884)

aww shit, I guess when you press back for submitting a reply to soon, the "Post Anonymously" box doens't stay checked. :-\

Re:in soviet russia (-1, Troll)

rkz (667993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998898)

I dont know what browser you are using but in mine it does.

Re:in soviet russia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998968)

Works the same way in the USA too. Linux takes 3-4 times longer to boot than XP does.

Now here come the replies that I have cheap/proprietary hardware, have something misconfigured, am turning on the computer incorrectly.....

*sigh*

Re:in soviet russia (-1, Offtopic)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999003)

You've been made sir. You have been betrayed by your browser. As you can understand you will be the first one to come to mind everytime we read a bewulf cluster/soviet russia/profit list/goatse.cx post. :)

Another way to speed up booting Linux (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998856)

Develop a better initialization sequence. Relying on a scripting language, such as bash, to initialize each system component slows down bootup time. Instead design a standard such that daemons can be stop/started/restarted with a standardized set of command line options.

Re:Another way to speed up booting Linux (5, Insightful)

pudding7 (584715) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998870)

Anyone ever wonder how we got ourselves into a situation where we spend so much time saving ourselves time?

Re:Another way to speed up booting Linux (2, Interesting)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998918)

It's just human nature. Douglas Adams wrote in "Last Chance to See" that he would glady spend an hour working on a way to save himself ten minutes on the computer.

Re:Another way to speed up booting Linux (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998966)

If Douglas Adams is so damn smart, why is he dead?

Re:Another way to speed up booting Linux (1)

Purificator (462832) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999018)

the /etc start scripts are very unix standard, so you see them all over and cross-platform developers don't have to write special startup modules/programs/scripts/plug-ins/whatever for linux. the "nifty" colors and functions some distros use are bad enough for that, but at least you can still dump in a normal self-contained shell script.

it really doesn't serve linux well to become totally different. before deviating from the norm, the reason has to be a lot better than "i'd like to boot my system 45 seconds faster."

Yeah, right! (4, Funny)

rocjoe71 (545053) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998858)

Like any Linux user is gonig to reset their uptime just to see if they can boot faster!

Re:Yeah, right! (1)

nocomment (239368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998905)

What why
***REBOOT IN 1 MINUTES***
not? It's worth a try rig............

Isn't there a way (2, Interesting)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998920)

to reboot without rebooting, such that uptime remains the same but kernel upgrades can take place?

I remember reading about it somewhere, but it was skimpy on details, sufficing to say that it was a "bad idea".

Re:Isn't there a way (1)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998970)

I guess you could run User mode linux... But that would kind of defeat the point of booting faster...

what we've got to do (1)

GreenCow (201973) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998859)

boot windows faster..out the door! the sooner we get to kicking that habit, the better linux will get. any distributions implementing this kind of parallel loading yet? get on it!

Re:what we've got to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998908)

Yes, windows already impliments this kind of parallel loading. too slow joe!

What's the rush? (1)

Sphere1952 (231666) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999001)

Let Windoze die a slow, agonizing, discraceful death.

Feature turn-around for Linux development is about 100x for Windoze. Let MS fiddle. That way, when we claim 50%+ of the desktops Bill's FUD will be little more than a bad joke.

I don't have a computer to boot... (3, Funny)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998861)

you insensitive clod!

Sendmail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998866)

Is soooo slow that it only starts after DNS timeout.

Re:Sendmail. (1)

wik (10258) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998887)

Now with Verisign's reply-to-every .COM/.NET TLD, you need not worry! Horray, at least one thing was fixed by the hellspawn of the internet.

Re:Sendmail. (1)

JavaSavant (579820) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998927)

Mmmm...Postfix.

Hmm (1, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998869)

I guess someone has a use for this, or they wouldn't have spent the time working on it. But I don't see it.

I never noticed Linux taking very long to load, and even if it did I doubt I would care very much, as reboots are so rare anyway.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998895)

Congratulations, you were one of the people referred to earlier in this comment here [slashdot.org] !

Re:Hmm (1)

starm_ (573321) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998915)

I shut down every night to save energy! With the new CPU's generating all the heat its worth it.

Re:Hmm (1)

UncleFluffy (164860) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998945)

I shut down every night to save energy! With the new CPU's generating all the heat its worth it.



I treat it as a tax-deductible way of heating my apartment...



Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998930)


someone has a use for this

You bet.

How long are you willing to wait for your stereo receiver to boot up, your TV, or your TiVo?

This is a really important issue for embedded devices like consumer electronics built on Linux.

Re:Hmm (1)

Sphere1952 (231666) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999020)

Gee. Why does my TV use power when it's turned off then?

Re:Hmm (1)

Vexalith (684137) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999004)

I use Linux but have to shut down every night to maintain sanity. Computer noise (in fact even transformer buzz) keeps me awake without fail, even if the machine is in another room. Maybe I should buy earmuffs.

Re:Hmm (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999016)

Think availability guarantees. Once you get into the rarified world of 9 9's, every minute counts.

What!?! (1, Offtopic)

ice-monk (646562) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998872)

No first boot trolls?

Timely (2, Redundant)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998873)

I had a conversation with my Dad about Linux start times yesterday that went something like:

Dad: But it takes so long to start up.

Me: Yeah, but you only have to do it once.

-Peter

HAR HAR HAR HAR!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998885)

you are teh funniest!!!

ladies and gentlemen, the next chris rock!!!

Re:Timely (1)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998888)

Did he return your volley by asking you if you were willing to pay the electricity bills until you moved out if you're leaving the computer on all the time?

Re:Timely (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998962)

I packed up my AT clone and my bus mouse and moved out years ago . . .

-Peter

Re:Timely (2, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998904)

Why is it taking long to boot up? That's not my experience. Loading a lot of services?

Re:Timely (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999032)

They might be comparing it to a WinXP box with a modern BIOS. My roomie's computer shows him his desktop by the time his monitor warms up completely. It feels like ten or fifteen seconds, tops.

Re:Timely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998916)

Congratulations, you were one of the people referred to earlier in this comment here [slashdot.org] !

Re:Timely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998982)

really? you've found some magical way to update your kernel without rebooting?

Dual (or more) cpus (1, Interesting)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998878)

This sounds like an awesome reason to have multiple cpus. Maybe I missed it in the article (I did read it rather quickly), but it didn't look like it was mentioned.

Even on an HT-enabled P4 this would be cool. Although the I/O would be the limiting factor in the process startup speed, letting multiple proceses start up at once would allow the cpu to switch to others while I/O is being services, much like make -j(# of cpus+1).

Re:Dual (or more) cpus (1)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998900)

Actually, IO being the limiting factor would actually benefit this method. If each task initiated its IO transaction and waited while other tasks also initiated their IO transactions, it would definitely be more efficient that one task initiating IO, waiting for a response, processing the response and so on sequentially

Re:Dual (or more) cpus (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998909)

This is Linux, dude. You'll have to wait for at least another 3 months before they figure out that they need to init both CPUs before trying to fire up device drivers. Until then, crash city.

Re:Dual (or more) cpus (1)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998938)

Hmm, that would n't really score in a cost to benefit analysis. An extra CPU to save you 1-2 minutes a day would be kind of silly, unless your making 100's of $//E an hour.

Decrease linux boot time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998883)

Sure, but can my box run linux?

Make? (5, Insightful)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998886)

Most surprising to me is the use of 'make' to handle dependencies between services."

Really? That's an odd statement. How surprising that they choose to use an open-source software application that is designed to compactly represent dependencies for representing dependencies.

Perhaps they should have drawn Visio diagrams instead!?

John.

Just turn off services you don't need (5, Informative)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998889)

I did that on an old slow laptop, and it cut the boot time quite a bit. There is plenty of stuff that you might not need to run like kudzu, lpd, portmap, sendmail, sshd, or clock syncing stuff.

Booting Linux Faster... (1, Funny)

Kedisar (705040) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998890)

Sounds like something MS wants you to do...

Other things to speed up boot time (5, Informative)

epiphani (254981) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998894)

These may seem obvious, but if you're after a quick boot, try doing these things:

  • Recompile the kernel with bare essentials only - monolithic.
  • Turn off non-essential non-inetd services.
  • Tweek your rc.d scripts to get rid of things like modprobe calls.
  • Dont boot directly to xdm if you dont have to.


Personally, I dont give a shit about how long my linux machines take to boot up, because they dont go off once they're up.

Re:Other things to speed up boot time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998934)

Congratulations, you were one of the people referred to earlier in this comment here [slashdot.org] !

LONG LIVE IBM! (1)

killermal (545771) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998922)

Wonderful. This will save me 20 seconds of computer deprivation after the next powercut.

Ummm faster hard drives? (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998925)

how to decrease boot times for your Linux box

Well, I might suggest faster hard drives....... :-) Seriously though, going from ATA to Ultra 320 drives made my G4 box pretty snappy on all disk related activities, including boot times.

Does it really take that long? (2, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998937)

I still remember the days when I installed Slackware off floppies, and unless my memory is failing much faster than anticipated, I don't think the kernel itself takes much longer to boot than it ever did.

What definitely does take longer is starting all the system services. I know that an out-of-box RedHat installation starts an insane number of (mostly useless) services on startup. The first thing I always do when installing a RH box is run 'ntsysv' and disable all the crud.

The 'kudzu' utility is the worst offender. It checks the system for any new hardware or peripherals. There's no need for this to run on every single boot!

And BTW... Why are you rebooting a Linux box anyway? ;-)

Re:Does it really take that long? (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999000)

That hardware detector has come in handy multiple times for me b/c i'm a linux n00b. But, i am curious which services are uneeded. I know that i will be disabling PCMCIA, b/c i don't have a slot for that. But you are correct about RH, load times blow. Is there any list of what all the different services do so I can determine what I need and don't need?

Also, ntsyv looks kinda like Unix "System V" that one company who will rename nameless has. AHH!! They're in kahootz w/ one another. ;-)

Very Nice (1)

taxtropel (637994) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998942)

I'm running a LinuxFromScratch system and I boot in under 8 sec (12 if you include X start times).
This is w/ the 2.4.2x series kernel.
W/ the 2.6.x series kernel, my boot times drops by about 3-4 sec. (yay). Now I find out I can start my services even faster!. (double yay)

What are the start times of other distros out there?

PS my hardware is
Athlon XP 1700, (1.5GHz)
256MB 2100DDR
Nvidia nForce1 MainBoard
Nvidia GForce 4 MX 440

Frisk Posted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998944)

Frisk post ha ha

you want me to reboot? (1)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998946)

You must be crazy. To think that you'd want me to sacrifice my current uptime record just so I can boot faster.

Reasons for faster boot time (1)

Pompatus (642396) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998948)

To all the people that wonder what use this is (because linux never needs rebooting I guess), consider this. I had a toshiba laptop w/ linux on it. I don't know why hibernation doesn't work (it does on my IBM thinkpad w/ no problems) but it just doesn't. Therefore, this 466 celeron has to boot up every time I use my laptop.

This slow boot time has caused me to put WinXP back on it, because it takes a 466 FOREVER to boot vs wake up from hibernation. This is also a shameless plea for any advice on how to configure hibernation on a Toshiba 2615DVD/6.0 running mandrake 9.1 :)

Re:Reasons for faster boot time (1)

gregfortune (313889) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999010)

Sometimes machines ship with a hibernation partition. Did you remove it when you installed linux? If you did, have fun. I have no idea how to get it back.

Also, why not just suspend instead of hibernate? Suspend is typically faster anyway although I think it consumes slightly more battery power when asleep. Try 'apm -S'

The Real Question (2, Funny)

rowanxmas (569908) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998952)

Because it must be asked....

How much time is saved when booting up a beowulf cluster?

interesting idea, but . . . (1)

Purificator (462832) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998953)

i think the best idea in the article is the last bullet point under "additional considerations," specifically that you just configure the system to let you log in earlier. since this is (as the article points out) mostly useful for desktops (or, more likely, laptops), a user doesn't need to wait for sshd or a web server to start before (s)he logs in.

i'm too used to the serial boot to use parallel booting. even on a desktop, i like to see the boot messages scroll by just in case.

Ehrm.. (1)

naitro (680425) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998971)

..is that it takes a long time between pressing the "on" button and actually being able to use a Linux system.

The what button?

Why does everone hate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998972)

Mandrake? No really I don't gedit

Imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998974)

Booting a Beowulf cluster of these.

You thought it, but only I had the courage to say it.

Google/cache mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6998975)

In case of slashdotting IBM's Commodore64 servers, use this google cache [216.239.53.104] .

Serel (5, Informative)

ensignyu (417022) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998979)

Serel [fastboot.org] does this too, for RedHat and Debian. It actually works; it's not just a proof-of-concept, although it does have a number of bugs.

there IS a need for this (1)

boarder (41071) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998983)

Contrary to most comments here about how this isn't needed because of uber uptimes of linux l33t users, some people would benefit from this. Any gamers who have to dual boot to windows to play some games will want this (you think HL2 will play on Wine when it comes out?). There was a time when I would reboot almost everyday (before BF1942 was playable on Wine). Sure, saving a 30 seconds or so per day isn't a big deal, but it's nice to be on par with WinXP's boot time.

-1 Redundant (1)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998991)

But I don't think people were listening. How often do you have to reboot? New kernel every 6 months or so, I can wait for quality why can't every one else?

Right... (1)

djblair (464047) | more than 11 years ago | (#6998993)

This way when I reboot my database server once a year, it will come back online 45 seconds faster.

FastBoot.org? (2, Informative)

nickread (217474) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999011)

Isn't this basically the same thing (different implementation though).

http://www.fastboot.org/

boot faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6999019)

grep sleep /etc/init.d/*

Confuscious say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6999031)

"launch your consoles and X server, before you run your daemons"

Energy, money, etc... (1)

1000101 (584896) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999035)

Am I the only person on here who doesn't give a rat's ass about my uptime (talking desktop pc here)?? I turn off my machine at night because it saves me money on my electric bill and because it saves electricity. Granted, it's not much, but you see articles all the time about how turning off your computer can save x amount of dollars. My RedHat 9 box takes forever to load but I still turn it off every day. My XP box takes less than 30 seconds.

Spooky (2, Informative)

JayJayEm (220851) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999036)

I was just thinking about this after reading the excellent whitepaper on Microsoft.com (don't laugh) at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/platform/perfo rmance/fastboot/fastboot-winxp.mspx [microsoft.com]

You should be able to extract the word document using a zip utility.

It describes in quite a lot of detail how they reduced boot time in XP (not only starting stuff in parallel but also prefetching and other tricks).

This is actually important (4, Insightful)

augustz (18082) | more than 11 years ago | (#6999037)

I see there are already a ton of linux fanboys and girls posting about the incredible uptime of their linux boxes, and claiming that a) boot time doesn't matter because linux doesn't go down or b) linux boots very fast.

They are wrong. Boot time matters.

It matters for perception. Boot time is one of the periods where a user spends the most time looking at a screen not being able to do anything (even if that happens rarely). A faster boot time leads to a sense that the whole system is faster, because it is a first impression, and a significant impression. If linux bliped on from a cold start in 5 seconds, I'd be studies would show it appeared faster.

Boot time matters because not everyone (in fact, very few people) leave their systems on all the time. Slashdot fan boys living at home may not agree, but they are wrong.

Think about business systems. At my place of work, everyone turns their computer off at the end of the day, and on at the beginning of the next. My mother doesn't leave her computer running 24/7, she turns it OFF when she is done using it. My roomates do the same thing. Even I do it sometimes.

Boot time matters because power management is still evolving under linux. As power management requires the cooperation of a number of pieces of a system, power management is still a work in progress. Once power management with every peripheral is flawless, then we can start to dial back boot time worries (only a little).

Boot time matters server side too. I know folks are going to complain that I focus on the user too much. But boot time matters server side as well. We have UPS units on our servers. They have however a limited lifetime. So when the power drops for a few minutes (which it does here somewhat often) automatic shutdown process starts.

When the power comes back on, people power up their computers. These being Windows XP machines they actually start pretty quickly (or never went off if on a UPS). If folks were in the middle of something, they expect that with the power their logon and other services will be back in action. Then all the individual computers start timing out / locking up, generating help calls.

On the server side, if there was an emergency security patch, or we were coming up from a power outage, the faster the boot time the better, if I can beat out even 20% of the client connect attempts.

Boot time matters, a big bravo to the folks working to improve this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?