| 1 |
Jerry McBride wrote: |
| 2 |
> Would some kind soul save me a bit of research time? Which of the two |
| 3 |
> alternative init schemes are faster, initng or runit? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Thank you in advance , Jerry |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
I have tried initng several months ago. It rocks. It's several times |
| 9 |
faster then the "normal" init. The problem at the time was there were no |
| 10 |
scripts for everything I wanted to start automatically. So one day I |
| 11 |
figured out that writing scripts and using faster init takes me more |
| 12 |
time then using slower init which works with almost no maintenance. This |
| 13 |
made me go back to the normal init. I have to say that while using |
| 14 |
initng I noticed that many scripts were added for a relatively short |
| 15 |
time. It is possible that now there are initng scripts for most of the |
| 16 |
services one would ever use, but you have to check it out for yourself. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I can't say a word about "runit", because it's the first time I read |
| 19 |
about it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
My next experiment for speeding the boot up will be fcache, but I'm |
| 22 |
waiting for a proper mood to try it ( it means: "I'm too lazy" ) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Daniel |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives