Re: 1-second kernel
Konstantin Svist wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Fedora is currently not targeted to embedded dedicated applications. I doubt that you will see a practical five second boot on server or workstation commercial hardware any time soon. By practical here I mean something that doesn't need to be tuned to each machine and/or assume anything on the network (DNS or DHCP servers) will respond instantly. The way some tests count "boot time" starts with a machine up and running at the boot manager, ignoring real world stuff like disk spinup, etc, it tests a portion of the delay from power on to ready to use. IIRC, the idea was to initialize hardware in parallel. The only thing (?) required for this to work is using kernel alone, without initrd. So my question is, how plausible is running Fedora without initrd? Don't the majority of users out there have similar hardware, making initrd unnecessary? A little hard to initialize hardware in parallel with disk, until you can read the kernel you aren't going to boot. And until you have a network connection in many cases you have a boot screen but no useful capabilities. My thought is that what's needed is a utility which can be run after the classic boot currently used, which could generate one kernel image to avoid module loads. Sort of "suspend to disk" combined with cold boot, where the kernel could be read into memory in a single disk i/o. I also note that there is no use made of hardware capacity. So even if I have two, or four, or sixteen CPUs, things don't get started in parallel, and my readahead values on block devices (blockdev cmd) don't get bumped to a larger value even on machines with 4 or more GB of memory. Example boot output attached. Even using initrd we could do a lot better. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot <>-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 01:26 -0800, NiftyFedora Mitch wrote: >> There are two places to pay critical attention to first: >> >> A. hardware initialization. >> >> For a system to boot all hardware has to be known in advance. >> NO probes that time out for this and that... SCSI timers are LONG... >> No probe of USB this and that. >> >> To that end building a kernel with "your" devices built in it >> can help. Exclude any driver that you do not have hardware for. > > It strikes me that that sort of thing ought to be the default action any > time you install a kernel - auto customising to suit your hardware, > particularly the non-changing aspects of it (on board chipsets, and > things plugged into them, like internal hard drives). > Unless you want to compile a new kernel every time you install an update, you are kind of stuck the way it is now - a kernel with the minimum built in, and modules loaded as the system boots. The initrd is set up with the modules you need at boot time. > Though I tend to favour the microkernel approach: The kernel has the > bare minimum needed, you load extras as needed. One motherboard with > the usual peripherals ought to only load a handful of modules, which > should be less elephantine than a kernel carrying hundreds of them. > Isn't this what we have. The exception is that the modules loaded tend to be more the a handful because of the different layers - but it means that more then one hardware driver can use the same mid-level drivers. That way, you are not building the same same mid-level code into several drivers that may be loaded at the same time. (SCSI hardware module, usb_storage module, etc all talking to the same SCSI module.) > But it should be something like: Customise my system now (when > installing a kernel, or whenever deliberately invoked). Subsequent > bootups will probably bootup the same way, so they can use your > preconfigurations, and don't need so much probing next time (find my > boot drive now, boot from it, poke around for other removable external > drives while booting, but don't delay booting while you look, since I've > already set what's needed to boot). You still have various rescue > options to handle a system that fails to boot, so customising shouldn't > lock you out. > >> B. Network timers. >> >> Network timers are much longer than we all expect... Ensure that >> all name servers and network knowledge that can be "hardwired" is. No >> DHCP no discovery of name servers. Snoop the net (dumb hub, second >> machine) and watch for timeouts and other traffic you do not expect. > > This shouldn't really be a major bottleneck. Your DHCP servers ought to > be quickly responsive. If they aren't, then that's something else that > should be tackled. > It depends on the DHCP server. Most home router/firewalls I have run into tend to be a bit slow in responding... > Wireless is a pain, though. It takes time for that to get organized, > and for some annoying reason, it takes longer to discover my wireless > router than it does to find the neighbor's. > I tend to configure the default SSID, so it only has to do a search if it can not find my router. On the other hand, it is more work when I am out and about and need to connect. >> For example X11 takes a lot longer to start than I expect.. in part >> because the window manager desktop has all sorts of live buttons and >> widgets. > > I find I sit there looking at GDM spinning its "wait a moment" indicator > for far longer than it should do. Here, the full X starts faster than > GDM does. I'm inclined to be suspicious about the superfluous feature > that loads different pictures at different times of day. The previous > GDM, which didn't do that, was easily and conveniently reconfigurable, > and didn't drag its heels. > >> Clean up as much as you can without X11 i.e. login on a simple text >> window... and use 'startx'... > > If you have to log in, then start X manually, that's adding a delay. So > I don't see a real benefit there. > > I had considered the notion of not using GDM (thanks to *its* holding up > delay), starting in a text mode, and scripting something to start X as > soon as I log in. However, my experience has been that without GDM and > Gnome (i.e. forgo one of them), and you find you're using a system > without sound, or network, or auto mounting, or something else that's > become dependent on one or the other of them. > Try XDM - it doesn't have all the fancy "bells and whistles", but I believe it is Gnome or KDE that takes care of sound, network, and auto mounting. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
From: "Frank Cox"
Sent: Saturday, 2008, December 20 09:36
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:29:37 -0600
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
One other thing - was the Amiga booting from ROM?
Depends on the Amiga. On the 500 and 1000 models, you had to boot from a
Kickstart disk, then boot from a Workbench disk. The 2000 had a Kickstart
rom,
but you then had to boot Workbench from a disk (either a 3.5" floppy or a
hard
drive).
It also depends on what you did after the machine was running the
s:startup-sequence. Mine was "rather large" in a sequence of files that
setup a world of macros and brought up an initial console window right
at the end after running a whole lot of background utilities. Wizardess
World was erm a minute or two for booting. But once in it life was nice.
(I miss some of the utilities I had running.)
{^_-} Yes, I am "That jdow"
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 01:26 -0800, NiftyFedora Mitch wrote: > There are two places to pay critical attention to first: > > A. hardware initialization. > > For a system to boot all hardware has to be known in advance. > NO probes that time out for this and that... SCSI timers are LONG... > No probe of USB this and that. > > To that end building a kernel with "your" devices built in it > can help. Exclude any driver that you do not have hardware for. It strikes me that that sort of thing ought to be the default action any time you install a kernel - auto customising to suit your hardware, particularly the non-changing aspects of it (on board chipsets, and things plugged into them, like internal hard drives). Though I tend to favour the microkernel approach: The kernel has the bare minimum needed, you load extras as needed. One motherboard with the usual peripherals ought to only load a handful of modules, which should be less elephantine than a kernel carrying hundreds of them. But it should be something like: Customise my system now (when installing a kernel, or whenever deliberately invoked). Subsequent bootups will probably bootup the same way, so they can use your preconfigurations, and don't need so much probing next time (find my boot drive now, boot from it, poke around for other removable external drives while booting, but don't delay booting while you look, since I've already set what's needed to boot). You still have various rescue options to handle a system that fails to boot, so customising shouldn't lock you out. > B. Network timers. > > Network timers are much longer than we all expect... Ensure that > all name servers and network knowledge that can be "hardwired" is. No > DHCP no discovery of name servers. Snoop the net (dumb hub, second > machine) and watch for timeouts and other traffic you do not expect. This shouldn't really be a major bottleneck. Your DHCP servers ought to be quickly responsive. If they aren't, then that's something else that should be tackled. Wireless is a pain, though. It takes time for that to get organised, and for some annoying reason, it takes longer to discover my wireless router than it does to find the neighbour's. > For example X11 takes a lot longer to start than I expect.. in part > because the window manager desktop has all sorts of live buttons and > widgets. I find I sit there looking at GDM spinning its "wait a moment" indicator for far longer than it should do. Here, the full X starts faster than GDM does. I'm inclined to be suspicious about the superfluous feature that loads different pictures at different times of day. The previous GDM, which didn't do that, was easily and conveniently reconfigurable, and didn't drag its heels. > Clean up as much as you can without X11 i.e. login on a simple text > window... and use 'startx'... If you have to log in, then start X manually, that's adding a delay. So I don't see a real benefit there. I had considered the notion of not using GDM (thanks to *its* holding up delay), starting in a text mode, and scripting something to start X as soon as I log in. However, my experience has been that without GDM and Gnome (i.e. forgo one of them), and you find you're using a system without sound, or network, or auto mounting, or something else that's become dependent on one or the other of them. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
john wendel wrote: > I really surprised that no one has mentioned this work here ... > >http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/ > > 5 second boot is coming soon! > > Regards, > > John > > That was the article I indirectly referenced in the opening message, actually :) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
john wendel wrote: > NiftyFedora Mitch wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Tim >> wrote: >>> Tim: > Five seconds is probably ambitious, but I still like how my old Amiga > would COLD BOOT in 13 seconds, warm boot was 11 seconds. That's from > off, to fully working system. >>> g: also, think about how much memory you had and was it 8 bit. hard drives? >>> No, not 8 bits. ;-) But there was an efficiency about it that isn't >>> around these days: You didn't make something multi-megabyte unless you >>> had to. You don't run a server unless you have to (right now, or at >>> all). Such as print servers if you don't need them, nor until you >>> actually go to print. >> >> Interesting discussion >> There are two places to pay critical attention to first: >> >> A. hardware initialization. >> >> For a system to boot all hardware has to be known in advance. >> NO probes that time out for this and that... SCSI timers are LONG... >> No probe of USB this and that. >> >> To that end building a kernel with "your" devices built in it >> can help. Exclude any driver that you do not have hardware for. >> Keep a vanilla kitchen sink kernel everything kernel as a safety net. >> Perhaps on a USB or LiveCD. >> >> B. Network timers. >> >> Network timers are much longer than we all expect... Ensure that >> all name servers and network knowledge that can be "hardwired" is. No >> DHCP no >> discovery of name servers. Snoop the net (dumb hub, second machine) >> and >> watch for timeouts and other traffic you do not expect. >> >> As others indicated most but not all services can be disabled >> and started later. "sudo service cups start" can be run long after >> you login. >> >> For example X11 takes a lot longer to start than I expect.. in part >> because the >> window manager desktop has all sorts of live buttons and widgets. >> Clean up as >> much as you can without X11 i.e. login on a simple text window... and >> use 'startx'... >> >> It is possible to use 'find' to discover all the files that have been >> accessed (opened) >> do an audit and find out why for each of them... all libs all >> programs... >> >> Profile anything that might run prior to a shell prompt you can in >> isolation. >> >> Simplify all that you can. >> > > I really surprised that no one has mentioned this work here ... > >http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/ > > 5 second boot is coming soon! > > Regards, > > John > > That was the article I indirectly referenced in the opening message, actually :) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
NiftyFedora Mitch wrote: On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Tim wrote: Tim: Five seconds is probably ambitious, but I still like how my old Amiga would COLD BOOT in 13 seconds, warm boot was 11 seconds. That's from off, to fully working system. g: also, think about how much memory you had and was it 8 bit. hard drives? No, not 8 bits. ;-) But there was an efficiency about it that isn't around these days: You didn't make something multi-megabyte unless you had to. You don't run a server unless you have to (right now, or at all). Such as print servers if you don't need them, nor until you actually go to print. Interesting discussion There are two places to pay critical attention to first: A. hardware initialization. For a system to boot all hardware has to be known in advance. NO probes that time out for this and that... SCSI timers are LONG... No probe of USB this and that. To that end building a kernel with "your" devices built in it can help. Exclude any driver that you do not have hardware for. Keep a vanilla kitchen sink kernel everything kernel as a safety net. Perhaps on a USB or LiveCD. B. Network timers. Network timers are much longer than we all expect... Ensure that all name servers and network knowledge that can be "hardwired" is. No DHCP no discovery of name servers. Snoop the net (dumb hub, second machine) and watch for timeouts and other traffic you do not expect. As others indicated most but not all services can be disabled and started later. "sudo service cups start" can be run long after you login. For example X11 takes a lot longer to start than I expect.. in part because the window manager desktop has all sorts of live buttons and widgets. Clean up as much as you can without X11 i.e. login on a simple text window... and use 'startx'... It is possible to use 'find' to discover all the files that have been accessed (opened) do an audit and find out why for each of them... all libs all programs... Profile anything that might run prior to a shell prompt you can in isolation. Simplify all that you can. I really surprised that no one has mentioned this work here ... http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/ 5 second boot is coming soon! Regards, John -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Tim wrote: > Tim: >>> Five seconds is probably ambitious, but I still like how my old Amiga >>> would COLD BOOT in 13 seconds, warm boot was 11 seconds. That's from >>> off, to fully working system. > > g: >> also, think about how much memory you had and was it 8 bit. hard drives? > > No, not 8 bits. ;-) But there was an efficiency about it that isn't > around these days: You didn't make something multi-megabyte unless you > had to. You don't run a server unless you have to (right now, or at > all). Such as print servers if you don't need them, nor until you > actually go to print. Interesting discussion There are two places to pay critical attention to first: A. hardware initialization. For a system to boot all hardware has to be known in advance. NO probes that time out for this and that... SCSI timers are LONG... No probe of USB this and that. To that end building a kernel with "your" devices built in it can help. Exclude any driver that you do not have hardware for. Keep a vanilla kitchen sink kernel everything kernel as a safety net. Perhaps on a USB or LiveCD. B. Network timers. Network timers are much longer than we all expect... Ensure that all name servers and network knowledge that can be "hardwired" is. No DHCP no discovery of name servers. Snoop the net (dumb hub, second machine) and watch for timeouts and other traffic you do not expect. As others indicated most but not all services can be disabled and started later. "sudo service cups start" can be run long after you login. For example X11 takes a lot longer to start than I expect.. in part because the window manager desktop has all sorts of live buttons and widgets. Clean up as much as you can without X11 i.e. login on a simple text window... and use 'startx'... It is possible to use 'find' to discover all the files that have been accessed (opened) do an audit and find out why for each of them... all libs all programs... Profile anything that might run prior to a shell prompt you can in isolation. Simplify all that you can. -- NiftyFedora T o m M i t c h e l l -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
Tim: >> Five seconds is probably ambitious, but I still like how my old Amiga >> would COLD BOOT in 13 seconds, warm boot was 11 seconds. That's from >> off, to fully working system. g: > also, think about how much memory you had and was it 8 bit. hard drives? No, not 8 bits. ;-) But there was an efficiency about it that isn't around these days: You didn't make something multi-megabyte unless you had to. You don't run a server unless you have to (right now, or at all). Such as print servers if you don't need them, nor until you actually go to print. And you don't do things by running them through a server if making it a client/server model is over complicating things. It's interesting that firing up an application (web browser, word processor, whatever), takes about the same amount of time then as now. So it does make one wonder about why booting should be significantly longer, in general. In all seriousness, I don't need to wait for CUPS to start before the system can carry on booting. I don't even need to wait for it before I log in. Not me, nor does the computer need to hold anything else up waiting while *that* gets ready. Nothing should get delayed while it fires up (completely) in the background. Of course there are *some* services which do need to be waited for, but not all of them. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 11:29 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > One other thing - was the Amiga booting from ROM? Only partially. Though the point was more about efficiency in a system, versus not. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
g wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Konstantin Svist wrote: So my question is, how plausible is running Fedora without initrd? Don't the majority of users out there have similar hardware, making initrd unnecessary? 'similar' is not the same as 'same'. if every computer had *exact same* hardware, ok. but they are not *exactly* same. It doesn't break anything to have a few unused modules linked - you could probably have one kernel that would make initrd unnecessary on the majority of desktop/laptop machines - and servers (where you need specific scsi drivers) typically aren't booted frequently anyway. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
g wrote: > Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > >> If you build your own kernel, with everything you need to boot built >> in, then you do not need an initrd. I guess I am not in the >> "majority" because none of my machines has the same hardware. One > > nice collection of 'toys'. > Thanks. > if you have built a custom kernel for all of them, > you must dream of hardware when you try to sleep. :o) > Only the P75 laptop, the Stylistic, and the SCSI system have custom kernels. Fedora kernels change too fast to be worth while building custom kernels. I feel it is worth the extra time to build custom kernels for servers - they don't change too often. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > If you build your own kernel, with everything you need to boot built > in, then you do not need an initrd. I guess I am not in the > "majority" because none of my machines has the same hardware. One nice collection of 'toys'. if you have built a custom kernel for all of them, you must dream of hardware when you try to sleep. :o) peace out. tc,hago. g . in a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look at* it. ** learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJTWNG+C4Bj9Rkw/wRAoBnAKDLgNOkpgTyxKys9L2tA1+kigsa3ACglbiY Wi4U/6jCpZUUwMw3PBXIzDA= =+hXW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
Konstantin Svist wrote: > > IIRC, the idea was to initialize hardware in parallel. The only thing > (?) required for this to work is using kernel alone, without initrd. > So my question is, how plausible is running Fedora without initrd? Don't > the majority of users out there have similar hardware, making initrd > unnecessary? > If you build your own kernel, with everything you need to boot built in, then you do not need an initrd. I guess I am not in the "majority" because none of my machines has the same hardware. One has SCSI drives, 2 more have different IDE controllers. Then there is my Laptop with the SATA controller. I also have 2 older laptops with different IDE controllers, and a third can not run Fedora (P75 with 40M of RAM) It works as a nice test bed for firewalls, IR to network gateway, Wireless to Ethernet gateway, or a print server. I also have a Stylistic 1000 with a 486 and 32M - it normally does not have a keyboard - it uses a "pen" that acts as a mouse on the screen, and an on screen keyboard. It has a PCMCIA slot that acts like an IDE controller for the hard drive. (PCMCIA hard drive, or memory card, or a conventional memory card in an adapter.) Then there are the USB drives that are bootable. They need the usb_storage module in the initrd as the hard drive controller. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Konstantin Svist wrote: > So my question is, how plausible is running Fedora without initrd? Don't > the majority of users out there have similar hardware, making initrd > unnecessary? 'similar' is not the same as 'same'. if every computer had *exact same* hardware, ok. but they are not *exactly* same. peace out. tc,hago. g . in a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look at* it. ** learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJTV5M+C4Bj9Rkw/wRAhRBAKDQuXQshOrQKYgfGq7OfT2RfzLeAACcCpT5 LRiD0nH/zg+ynkTmKrC/xp4= =vGao -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
On Saturday 20 December 2008, Frank Cox wrote: >On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:29:37 -0600 > >Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >> One other thing - was the Amiga booting from ROM? > >Depends on the Amiga. On the 500 and 1000 models, you had to boot from a >Kickstart disk, then boot from a Workbench disk. The 2000 had a Kickstart > rom, but you then had to boot Workbench from a disk (either a 3.5" floppy > or a hard drive). Yup, and everytime you loaded another piece of hardware, it was a soft reboot to register it for system use. My fully loaded a2k, with a pp&s 68040 card, with 64 megs of ram on it, 2 megs of chip, and all slots full, took over a minute for a warm reboot, nearly 1.5 for a cold one. >-- >MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com >DRY CLEANER BUSINESS FOR SALE ~ http://www.canadadrycleanerforsale.com -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Given enough time and money, eventually Microsoft will re-invent UNIX. -- From a Slashdot.org post -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
Bill Davidsen wrote: > Konstantin Svist wrote: >> There was a 5-second Linux entry a while back, and it was mentioned that >> 2.6.27 should boot in 1 second (with .5-second boot coming in 2.6.28) >> I'm not seeing it on the F10 install (updated to latest release >> version). >> I'm guessing that's because of initrd (I heard that it must be turned >> off for 1-second kernel to work). >> >> Is there (or are there plans for) a maintained version of 1-second >> kernel for Fedora? >> >> >> > Fedora is currently not targeted to embedded dedicated applications. I > doubt that you will see a practical five second boot on server or > workstation commercial hardware any time soon. By practical here I > mean something that doesn't need to be tuned to each machine and/or > assume anything on the network (DNS or DHCP servers) will respond > instantly. > > The way some tests count "boot time" starts with a machine up and > running at the boot manager, ignoring real world stuff like disk > spinup, etc, it tests a portion of the delay from power on to ready to > use. > IIRC, the idea was to initialize hardware in parallel. The only thing (?) required for this to work is using kernel alone, without initrd. So my question is, how plausible is running Fedora without initrd? Don't the majority of users out there have similar hardware, making initrd unnecessary? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
Frank Cox wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:29:37 -0600 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: One other thing - was the Amiga booting from ROM? Depends on the Amiga. On the 500 and 1000 models, you had to boot from a Kickstart disk, then boot from a Workbench disk. The 2000 had a Kickstart rom, but you then had to boot Workbench from a disk (either a 3.5" floppy or a hard drive). I thought this concept was coming around again with some new PC's having Linux in ROM for near-instant on for certain operations? Maybe the best approach for the people who care about boot speed would be to figure out how to get 'your' version of Linux into these ROMs. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:29:37 -0600 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > One other thing - was the Amiga booting from ROM? Depends on the Amiga. On the 500 and 1000 models, you had to boot from a Kickstart disk, then boot from a Workbench disk. The 2000 had a Kickstart rom, but you then had to boot Workbench from a disk (either a 3.5" floppy or a hard drive). -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com DRY CLEANER BUSINESS FOR SALE ~ http://www.canadadrycleanerforsale.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
g wrote: > Tim wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 15:47 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: >>> I doubt that you will see a practical five second boot on server or >>> workstation commercial hardware any time soon. >> Five seconds is probably ambitious, but I still like how my old Amiga >> would COLD BOOT in 13 seconds, warm boot was 11 seconds. That's from >> off, to fully working system. > > also, think about how much memory you had and was it 8 bit. hard drives? > One other thing - was the Amiga booting from ROM? I know my CP/M system with a 4mz Z80 booted almost instantly when using a RAM disk for drive A. 256k of extended addressing static RAM with an onboard battery backup and a smart disk controller board with its own 8085 processor and DMA memory moves. (4 5-1/4" floppies, 4 8" floppies, 3 MFM hard drives, and a memory drive - not that I had that many drives attached.) The Z80 board and the disk controller board booted from ROM, then loaded the OS. It took a bit longer booting from the hard drive. Now, if I just wanted the Z-80 monitor program, that was up as soon as the power supply was stable. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 15:47 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: >> I doubt that you will see a practical five second boot on server or >> workstation commercial hardware any time soon. > > Five seconds is probably ambitious, but I still like how my old Amiga > would COLD BOOT in 13 seconds, warm boot was 11 seconds. That's from > off, to fully working system. also, think about how much memory you had and was it 8 bit. hard drives? peace out. tc,hago. g . in a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look at* it. ** learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJTSBK+C4Bj9Rkw/wRAhT7AKCjwT43lKNaaeDF/IWnVvNbhMPe/ACfX0pX x0NjbkUvZ7oI58WCr0oSv8M= =RKed -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 15:47 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > I doubt that you will see a practical five second boot on server or > workstation commercial hardware any time soon. Five seconds is probably ambitious, but I still like how my old Amiga would COLD BOOT in 13 seconds, warm boot was 11 seconds. That's from off, to fully working system. Of course, if I want to add things, like a web server, that will take longer to start up. But the system was up and running normally in that time frame. No churning of things in the background, nothing disabled that you'd normally need when using the system. I think that a quarter minute start up is reasonably practical and sensible. Two minutes, or more, to get started is not, it's extremely inefficient. Especially for a workstation. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.7-53.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: 1-second kernel
Konstantin Svist wrote: There was a 5-second Linux entry a while back, and it was mentioned that 2.6.27 should boot in 1 second (with .5-second boot coming in 2.6.28) I'm not seeing it on the F10 install (updated to latest release version). I'm guessing that's because of initrd (I heard that it must be turned off for 1-second kernel to work). Is there (or are there plans for) a maintained version of 1-second kernel for Fedora? Fedora is currently not targeted to embedded dedicated applications. I doubt that you will see a practical five second boot on server or workstation commercial hardware any time soon. By practical here I mean something that doesn't need to be tuned to each machine and/or assume anything on the network (DNS or DHCP servers) will respond instantly. The way some tests count "boot time" starts with a machine up and running at the boot manager, ignoring real world stuff like disk spinup, etc, it tests a portion of the delay from power on to ready to use. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
1-second kernel
There was a 5-second Linux entry a while back, and it was mentioned that 2.6.27 should boot in 1 second (with .5-second boot coming in 2.6.28) I'm not seeing it on the F10 install (updated to latest release version). I'm guessing that's because of initrd (I heard that it must be turned off for 1-second kernel to work). Is there (or are there plans for) a maintained version of 1-second kernel for Fedora? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
