On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Albert W. Hopkins <mar...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: >> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be >> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, >> especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible >> time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and >> frequent >> boots). > > I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup > times with rc_parallel. The config file even says "slight speed" > improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you > might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most > people". > > Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for > some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get > to pick up the pieces.
I enabled it for a while, ran into a problem once which left my system unbootable, chrooted from a livecd and disabled it, and never thought about enabling it again. I usually count my yearly reboots on one hand, so a few seconds saved to me are not worth my potential minutes or hours spent fixing it if it goes wrong, in my opinion. For a dev box or laptop that is booted frequently, that's a different story. Just not my story. :)
