On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am Samstag, 13. Oktober 2012, 16:40:45 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann >> >> <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > Am Samstag, 13. Oktober 2012, 15:57:31 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: >> >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> >> > >> > wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Philip Webb <purs...@ca.inter.net> > wrote: >> >> >> Regulars will remember the threads re the machine I built recently. >> >> >> I thought they mb interested in the start-up time now all is working : >> >> >> Gigabyte BIOS 10 s , Linux Lilo prompt - login prompt 8 s , >> >> >> 'startx' - GUI ready 4 s : total 22 s + entering userid+password ; >> >> >> I start the I/net connection (Dhcpcd) manually from the GUI ( 15 s ). >> >> >> I assume most of the speed is attributable to the SSD, >> >> >> perhaps a bit to the 1600 MHz memory; of course, Gentoo shares the >> >> >> honors; >> >> >> my desktop manager is Fluxbox & I start apps on desktops manually. >> >> > >> >> > Toshiba Portégé Z830, with an iCore 5 at 1.60GHz, 6 GB of memory, and >> >> > a tiny 128 GB SSD. It takes 12 seconds from GRUB to GDM, and from the >> >> > time I enter my password and my GNOME 3 desktop is ready it takes >> >> > another 6 seconds, so 18 seconds in total (plus how much it takes for >> >> > me to click in my user and enter my password). >> >> > >> >> > Like you, I attribute most of the speed gain to the SSD. The rest is >> >> > systemd. >> >> >> >> Damn, is GNOME fat. I booted to text console (disabled GDM), and I >> >> also disabled plymouth. From GRUB2 to login prompt it takes less than >> >> 6 seconds, so the really slow part is starting GDM and then switching >> >> to GNOME 3. The BIOS is pretty fast, it takes 4 seconds from power on >> >> to the GRUB2 menu. >> >> >> >> The fast part (GRUB2->login prompt) is because of systemd. >> > >> > I doubt that, >> >> Install systemd and do the test; I got the numbers to prove it. >> systemd is consistently faster than OpenRC (which doesn't even >> properly support parallel starting of services), sometimes several >> times faster. >> >> Luca Barbato mentioned about a way to make OpenRC use busybox in >> reentrant mode; the difference in speed in that case should be less. >> However, the fact is that OpenRC doesn't support parallel start of >> services; it said so in its own documentation: >> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945#c10 >> >> "rc_parallel has never officially been declared a stable feature (see >> the comments in rc.conf regarding this)." >> >> So no matter how fast the scripts could execute (which anyway will be >> slower than small highly optimized C programs), the lack of proper >> parallelization will make OpenRC slower than systemd. >> >> So doubt as much as you want. It doesn't change the fact that (in this >> particular issue), you are wrong. >> > > and since I use openrc with parallel startup, I just doubt it even more.
So you know better than the devs. I'm sure you believe so; good luck with that. I would do the test, though; otherwise you are talking about beliefs, not facts. > The place where I lose time is starting of my five md-raids. And that is > something not even systemd can speed up. That may be true, but until someone does the benchmark we don't know. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
