| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann |
| 2 |
<volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Am Samstag, 13. Oktober 2012, 15:57:31 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: |
| 4 |
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> >> Regulars will remember the threads re the machine I built recently. |
| 8 |
>> >> I thought they mb interested in the start-up time now all is working : |
| 9 |
>> >> Gigabyte BIOS 10 s , Linux Lilo prompt - login prompt 8 s , |
| 10 |
>> >> 'startx' - GUI ready 4 s : total 22 s + entering userid+password ; |
| 11 |
>> >> I start the I/net connection (Dhcpcd) manually from the GUI ( 15 s ). |
| 12 |
>> >> I assume most of the speed is attributable to the SSD, |
| 13 |
>> >> perhaps a bit to the 1600 MHz memory; of course, Gentoo shares the |
| 14 |
>> >> honors; |
| 15 |
>> >> my desktop manager is Fluxbox & I start apps on desktops manually. |
| 16 |
>> > |
| 17 |
>> > Toshiba Portégé Z830, with an iCore 5 at 1.60GHz, 6 GB of memory, and |
| 18 |
>> > a tiny 128 GB SSD. It takes 12 seconds from GRUB to GDM, and from the |
| 19 |
>> > time I enter my password and my GNOME 3 desktop is ready it takes |
| 20 |
>> > another 6 seconds, so 18 seconds in total (plus how much it takes for |
| 21 |
>> > me to click in my user and enter my password). |
| 22 |
>> > |
| 23 |
>> > Like you, I attribute most of the speed gain to the SSD. The rest is |
| 24 |
>> > systemd. |
| 25 |
>> Damn, is GNOME fat. I booted to text console (disabled GDM), and I |
| 26 |
>> also disabled plymouth. From GRUB2 to login prompt it takes less than |
| 27 |
>> 6 seconds, so the really slow part is starting GDM and then switching |
| 28 |
>> to GNOME 3. The BIOS is pretty fast, it takes 4 seconds from power on |
| 29 |
>> to the GRUB2 menu. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> The fast part (GRUB2->login prompt) is because of systemd. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I doubt that, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Install systemd and do the test; I got the numbers to prove it. |
| 36 |
systemd is consistently faster than OpenRC (which doesn't even |
| 37 |
properly support parallel starting of services), sometimes several |
| 38 |
times faster. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Luca Barbato mentioned about a way to make OpenRC use busybox in |
| 41 |
reentrant mode; the difference in speed in that case should be less. |
| 42 |
However, the fact is that OpenRC doesn't support parallel start of |
| 43 |
services; it said so in its own documentation: |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945#c10 |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
"rc_parallel has never officially been declared a stable feature (see |
| 48 |
the comments in rc.conf regarding this)." |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
So no matter how fast the scripts could execute (which anyway will be |
| 51 |
slower than small highly optimized C programs), the lack of proper |
| 52 |
parallelization will make OpenRC slower than systemd. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
So doubt as much as you want. It doesn't change the fact that (in this |
| 55 |
particular issue), you are wrong. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Regards. |
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 60 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 61 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives