| 1 |
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 18:42, Daniel Iliev wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jerry McBride wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Would some kind soul save me a bit of research time? Which of the two |
| 4 |
> > alternative init schemes are faster, initng or runit? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Thank you in advance , Jerry |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I have tried initng several months ago. It rocks. It's several times |
| 10 |
> faster then the "normal" init. The problem at the time was there were no |
| 11 |
> scripts for everything I wanted to start automatically. So one day I |
| 12 |
> figured out that writing scripts and using faster init takes me more |
| 13 |
> time then using slower init which works with almost no maintenance. This |
| 14 |
> made me go back to the normal init. I have to say that while using |
| 15 |
> initng I noticed that many scripts were added for a relatively short |
| 16 |
> time. It is possible that now there are initng scripts for most of the |
| 17 |
> services one would ever use, but you have to check it out for yourself. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I can't say a word about "runit", because it's the first time I read |
| 20 |
> about it. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> My next experiment for speeding the boot up will be fcache, but I'm |
| 23 |
> waiting for a proper mood to try it ( it means: "I'm too lazy" ) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Hi Daniel, |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Fcache works, but we didn't see the performance boost that going to initng |
| 29 |
gave. Since it requires it's very own ext3 partition to work, plus a kernel |
| 30 |
patch... we dropped it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Using initng is the ticket... Maybe the gentoo devs will directly support it |
| 33 |
or a variant someday... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Cheers, Jerry |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives