| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Albert W. Hopkins |
| 2 |
<marduk@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be |
| 5 |
>> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, |
| 6 |
>> especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible |
| 7 |
>> time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and |
| 8 |
>> frequent |
| 9 |
>> boots). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup |
| 12 |
> times with rc_parallel. The config file even says "slight speed" |
| 13 |
> improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you |
| 14 |
> might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most |
| 15 |
> people". |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for |
| 18 |
> some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get |
| 19 |
> to pick up the pieces. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I enabled it for a while, ran into a problem once which left my system |
| 22 |
unbootable, chrooted from a livecd and disabled it, and never thought |
| 23 |
about enabling it again. I usually count my yearly reboots on one |
| 24 |
hand, so a few seconds saved to me are not worth my potential minutes |
| 25 |
or hours spent fixing it if it goes wrong, in my opinion. For a dev |
| 26 |
box or laptop that is booted frequently, that's a different story. |
| 27 |
Just not my story. :) |
Archives