| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:59 on Saturday 20 November 2010, Mick did |
| 2 |
opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Saturday 20 November 2010 00:22:49 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 01:21 on Saturday 20 November 2010, Neil |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Bothwick did opine thusly: |
| 8 |
> > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:13:50 +0000, Mick wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > Short of measuring the latency with some system (which I wouldn't |
| 10 |
> > > > know how) I have experimented with setting the /boot partition on |
| 11 |
> > > > primary and logical partitions and the difference (on a stopwatch) |
| 12 |
> > > > was measurable in seconds betweeen having said partition on a |
| 13 |
> > > > primary and having it on a logical. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > Are you talking about GRUB loading time, kernel loading or what? |
| 16 |
> > > Since /boot isn't normally mounted or used once the kernel is loaded, I |
| 17 |
> > > don't see how relevant this is. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > And: |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Boot time differences measured in *seconds*? |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > fifty bucks says his fsck number came up |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Yes, I'm talking about GRUB loading time. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> This is a (touch wood) healthy fs which has been serving my wife happily |
| 28 |
> for the last 4 years ... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Was the speed difference a once-off, or is it consistent and reproducible? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives