5 ms·

I can't take this rant seriously when it dismisses the importance of fast startup. "You shouldn't care if your system starts up slowly" is just untenable.

by ootachi 15y ago

count 15y ago
The multi-second difference in software start time, after waiting 5+ minutes for my RAID to initialize and all the onboard crap to check out is really negligible.
- switch007 15y ago
  Yes. This is perhaps the point (s)he meant to make. There are other processes that take much longer, and the tens of seconds difference in the boot process isn't that great in the grand scheme of things.
- binarycrusader 15y ago
  Except if you're using ksplice on Linux to start a new kernel, you won't be waiting for RAID to initialise, which means those seconds do matter. (Or fast reboot on Solaris.) In many SLAs, the amount of time the system is unavailable can count against the company providing the server. Minimising the amount of downtime is a win for everyone.
  - count 15y ago
    If you're basing downtime avoidance on 'how fast I can boot', you're doing it wrong.
    - binarycrusader 15y ago
      Stop and think about this for a moment. Given the number of potential updates that may require a reboot to a system that is regularly maintained (for security and/or other reasons) shaving seconds off the boot process can really add up. The number of seconds that a system isn't available to serve requests can mean the difference between six nines and three nines of availability easily over the course of a year. It has nothing to do with "how fast I can boot", it's strictly about the amount of time the system is available to perform its expected operations. No one cares if you can't serve requests because it was rebooting or some other reason, the availability of the system's desired functionality is all that counts.
4ad 15y ago
I can't take you seriously when you don't justify your claims. Sure, it may be that fast startup is important for you, but it's not important for me as a desktop user, and it's not important for me as a server administrator. I reboot every couple of months at best when there's some kernel update, I suspend my desktops to RAM instead of shutting them down. Two minutes of downtime per server is also irrelevant to its two month uptime, especially when you have clusters of servers so your service doesn't experience downtime at all.
- ootachi 15y ago
  Decades of user research has shown that users really care about fast bootup times. Your use case is the minority. Why do you think that fast start is Google's #1 selling point for Chromebooks, for example? (Not that Chromebooks are successful, but Google is famous for paying attention to user research.)
  - 4ad 15y ago
    This article is about servers.

I can't take this rant seriously when it dismisses the importance of fast startup. "You shouldn't care if your system starts up slowly" is just untenable.

by ootachi 15y ago

I can't take this rant seriously when it dismisses the importance of fast startup. "You shouldn't care if your system starts up slowly" is just untenable.

count 15y ago

The multi-second difference in software start time, after waiting 5+ minutes for my RAID to initialize and all the onboard crap to check out is really negligible.

switch007 15y ago
Yes. This is perhaps the point (s)he meant to make. There are other processes that take much longer, and the tens of seconds difference in the boot process isn't that great in the grand scheme of things.
binarycrusader 15y ago
Except if you're using ksplice on Linux to start a new kernel, you won't be waiting for RAID to initialise, which means those seconds do matter. (Or fast reboot on Solaris.) In many SLAs, the amount of time the system is unavailable can count against the company providing the server. Minimising the amount of downtime is a win for everyone.
- count 15y ago
  If you're basing downtime avoidance on 'how fast I can boot', you're doing it wrong.
  - binarycrusader 15y ago
    Stop and think about this for a moment. Given the number of potential updates that may require a reboot to a system that is regularly maintained (for security and/or other reasons) shaving seconds off the boot process can really add up. The number of seconds that a system isn't available to serve requests can mean the difference between six nines and three nines of availability easily over the course of a year. It has nothing to do with "how fast I can boot", it's strictly about the amount of time the system is available to perform its expected operations. No one cares if you can't serve requests because it was rebooting or some other reason, the availability of the system's desired functionality is all that counts.

4ad 15y ago

I can't take you seriously when you don't justify your claims. Sure, it may be that fast startup is important for you, but it's not important for me as a desktop user, and it's not important for me as a server administrator. I reboot every couple of months at best when there's some kernel update, I suspend my desktops to RAM instead of shutting them down. Two minutes of downtime per server is also irrelevant to its two month uptime, especially when you have clusters of servers so your service doesn't experience downtime at all.

ootachi 15y ago
Decades of user research has shown that users really care about fast bootup times. Your use case is the minority. Why do you think that fast start is Google's #1 selling point for Chromebooks, for example? (Not that Chromebooks are successful, but Google is famous for paying attention to user research.)
- 4ad 15y ago
  This article is about servers.