4 ms·

Boot time again. In a server environment it happens that the various DRAC/BIOS(es) are initialized and the bootloader reached is far longer (several minutes so

Boot time again. In a server environment it happens that the various DRAC/BIOS(es) are initialized and the bootloader reached is far longer (several minutes sometimes) than the boot time of sysvinit. So optimizing boot time in the Linux part on a server is probably moot for me. On the laptop you can suspend/hibernate as others have said if you care about startup time. I have full-disk encryption and need to type in password to boot so few seconds more or less doesn't matter anyway. So that leaves the desktop, where I might care about boot times (the UEFI/BIOS is actually saner than in servers and reaches the bootloader very fast). It turns out that my desktop boots faster than my router with sysvinit already, so having faster boot times on my desktop would get me nowhere, I still wouldn't be able to use the internet until the router has booted. So faster boot times ... I didn't need all the pain systemd is causing just for that. Debian has haid makefile/startpar based concurrent boot already, I don't think systemd would improve on that much ... Meanwhile not using systemd breaks things that used to work on a KDE desktop (USB mounting, VPN config, etc.), so having an app support systemd is a net-negative for me.

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
Holy heck, I get being defensive, but you've let logic totally fall by the wayside here. Where do I start... The fact that BIOS/DRAC/RAID initialisation is slow on some servers is irrelevant. Linux's init and the firmware initialisation don't run concurrently, therefore if init takes longer the whole boot takes longer. Additionally many servers manufacturers have improved boot times in the last few years (down from 10+ minutes, to 5+ minutes, to less). Most routers don't take as long to boot as you claim. The entire OS is about 8 MB (uncompressed) and RAM is only 32 MB, and the medium that the OS is stored on is faster than a computer's hard drive. So just looking at IO should tell you your supposition is flawed. In my experience most Linux based routers boot the RJ-45 interface (LAN side) in under 20 seconds unless it is allocating slowly on the WAN interface (e.g. unable to get an IP, etc). If you set a static WAN IP/gateway/etc, then boot times comes down substantially. Additionally the whole concept that every time your PC turns off you'll also turn off your router at the mains is, uhh, strange. Sure there are power cuts but that isn't the only time you shutdown your PC throughout the year. The concept that your PC needs to wait for the server is equally flawed. Again, yes, power cuts. But PCs get shut down significantly more often than servers and if we're playing that game then wouldn't a "server" have a UPS anyway? So overall your argument for why boot times don't matter lacks any kind of substance. It is also purely based on a PC->Server->Router infrastructure where nothing is on a UPS and everything suffers from a power cut (then "races" to all come back up). In the real world my phone has Linux, our "Tivo" has Linux, our printer has Linux, our car's entertainment system has Linux, etc. So bad Linux boot times will be noticed day to day. It matters to a lot of people and while I don't know if systemd is the solution, I do know that progress is needed relative to the classic UNIX init system (per the article).
- edwintorok 12y ago
  I think my point was that boot times are fast enough already on desktop/laptop, and systemd improvements over that do not justify the costs for me. It would be nice to improve boot times on routers, but I don't know if systemd would improve there much. Boot time on desktop with sysvinit: 8-9s, boot time on desktop with systemd: ~6s. Boot time of router (until network is up and usable, maybe made longer by having to setup WiFi): 1m+. PC waiting for router is my usual use-case when I power off everything and then power them back on at another time. I haven't said anything about PC waiting for server, and I agree it wouldn't make sense. I don't have a server with systemd to check, but assuming similar improvement, 4s out of 5m+ you mention is barely 1%.
Corrado 12y ago
Boot time most definitely impacts my cloud computing setup. If your servers are pets then, no, boot time is not important to you. However, my cattle are constantly being brought to life and killed again. When I need additional capacity to handle a spike in load, I want it right now, not in 5 minutes.

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago

Holy heck, I get being defensive, but you've let logic totally fall by the wayside here. Where do I start... The fact that BIOS/DRAC/RAID initialisation is slow on some servers is irrelevant. Linux's init and the firmware initialisation don't run concurrently, therefore if init takes longer the whole boot takes longer. Additionally many servers manufacturers have improved boot times in the last few years (down from 10+ minutes, to 5+ minutes, to less). Most routers don't take as long to boot as you claim. The entire OS is about 8 MB (uncompressed) and RAM is only 32 MB, and the medium that the OS is stored on is faster than a computer's hard drive. So just looking at IO should tell you your supposition is flawed. In my experience most Linux based routers boot the RJ-45 interface (LAN side) in under 20 seconds unless it is allocating slowly on the WAN interface (e.g. unable to get an IP, etc). If you set a static WAN IP/gateway/etc, then boot times comes down substantially. Additionally the whole concept that every time your PC turns off you'll also turn off your router at the mains is, uhh, strange. Sure there are power cuts but that isn't the only time you shutdown your PC throughout the year. The concept that your PC needs to wait for the server is equally flawed. Again, yes, power cuts. But PCs get shut down significantly more often than servers and if we're playing that game then wouldn't a "server" have a UPS anyway? So overall your argument for why boot times don't matter lacks any kind of substance. It is also purely based on a PC->Server->Router infrastructure where nothing is on a UPS and everything suffers from a power cut (then "races" to all come back up). In the real world my phone has Linux, our "Tivo" has Linux, our printer has Linux, our car's entertainment system has Linux, etc. So bad Linux boot times will be noticed day to day. It matters to a lot of people and while I don't know if systemd is the solution, I do know that progress is needed relative to the classic UNIX init system (per the article).

edwintorok 12y ago
I think my point was that boot times are fast enough already on desktop/laptop, and systemd improvements over that do not justify the costs for me. It would be nice to improve boot times on routers, but I don't know if systemd would improve there much. Boot time on desktop with sysvinit: 8-9s, boot time on desktop with systemd: ~6s. Boot time of router (until network is up and usable, maybe made longer by having to setup WiFi): 1m+. PC waiting for router is my usual use-case when I power off everything and then power them back on at another time. I haven't said anything about PC waiting for server, and I agree it wouldn't make sense. I don't have a server with systemd to check, but assuming similar improvement, 4s out of 5m+ you mention is barely 1%.

Corrado 12y ago

Boot time most definitely impacts my cloud computing setup. If your servers are pets then, no, boot time is not important to you. However, my cattle are constantly being brought to life and killed again. When I need additional capacity to handle a spike in load, I want it right now, not in 5 minutes.