| 1 |
On 8/17/12 7:39 AM, heroxbd@×××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, Rich, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> writes: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:38 AM, <heroxbd@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> writes: |
| 8 |
>>>> Were is it? I'd like to read it =) |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> And the "counter systemd" talk page, |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Just a comment on this - OpenRC is listed as having parallel startup |
| 17 |
>> support, but I believe that this configuration is actually considered |
| 18 |
>> unsupported on Gentoo even if the code is there. I believe even the |
| 19 |
>> configuration options were removed from the config file to discourage |
| 20 |
>> their user (though if somebody happens to know about the option they |
| 21 |
>> can add it in and it will work. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> It is probably worth noting that this is an experimental feature in a |
| 24 |
>> comparison. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Thanks a lot for the comment. I agree. Nobody cares about the tiny (not |
| 27 |
> tested) booting up time gain with rc_parallel. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It can be not so tiny, surely busybox+openrc gives a better gain in many |
| 30 |
cases. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> I think it was "Parallel service startup - OpenRC - yes(buggy)" in wiki |
| 33 |
> before. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Keep it like this, help on making it non-buggy is welcome |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
lu |
Archives