| 1 |
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Jason Rhinelander wrote: |
| 2 |
> Roman Gaufman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Hey, I came across this page on the forum: |
| 5 |
>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=231170 -- looking |
| 6 |
>> specifically at the init.d script modifications. What do you think? |
| 7 |
... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Also, don't forget to add a big ASCII-art logo during the bootup - |
| 10 |
> preferrably one with flames in the image, or perhaps one that says |
| 11 |
> "Type-R". It definitely makes Honda Civics go faster, so why not a |
| 12 |
> Gentoo bootup? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Agreed. I cannot stress this enough. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
... |
| 17 |
> Sure, set RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP if you want; I turned it on, but I can't |
| 18 |
> say I saw any noticable difference - I _did_ notice some things starting |
| 19 |
> in parallel, but the overall startup didn't seem any faster. But, if |
| 20 |
> stickers on your Honda Civic make you feel faster... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I suspect this would mainly be noticable on multiprocessor systems. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
However, as a general rule, I'd think the difference would be negligable |
| 25 |
in most cases. Most of the startup scripts that come to mind that take |
| 26 |
a noticable amount of time to start are dependancies for other startup |
| 27 |
scripts, and they're all I/O bound, rather than CPU bound. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Note that RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP does potentially expose more timing |
| 30 |
issues. I think its main benefit would be assisting in exposing missing |
| 31 |
dependancies; startup scripts which lacked one of their dependancies |
| 32 |
would never work, rather than working sometimes. However, it could |
| 33 |
introduce other flakiness, which would be harder to track down. (All of |
| 34 |
the cases of this that I can think of fall under the scope of 'problems |
| 35 |
"fixed" the wrong way'.) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Ed |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives