| 1 |
On Nov 30, 2011 12:51 AM, "Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@×××××××××××.org> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be |
| 6 |
> > completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, |
| 7 |
> > especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible |
| 8 |
> > time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and |
| 9 |
> > frequent |
| 10 |
> > boots). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup |
| 13 |
> times with rc_parallel. The config file even says "slight speed" |
| 14 |
> improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you |
| 15 |
> might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most |
| 16 |
> people". |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for |
| 19 |
> some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get |
| 20 |
> to pick up the pieces. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
On my server boxen, rc_parallel gives a very tangible benefit. The boot |
| 24 |
time gets cut by roughly half. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rgds, |
Archives