Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
2008/5/22 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 14:07 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
The kernel module writes it. For boot prefetching, userspace script
processes the lists as they are merged and sorted for last 3 runs.
I noticed that you get lists (in /) for the phases, but files
in /prefetch for applications named PATH-stamp?
Yes, boot prefetch files are in /.prefetch-boot-trace.PHASE (I should
change that), while application files and historical boot files are
kept in /prefetch.
Could you give a little more detail on what files to expect, and what
the content/format of those files are?
You should expect:
/.prefetch-boot-trace.PHASE
/prefetch/.prefetch-boot-trace.PHASE.TIMESTAMP (3 files for each phase)
/prefetch/APPNAME-HASH for each application using prefetching
Prefetch file format is simple, the header and then series of trace records.
You can see the structures in file prefetch_types.h in prefetch
userspace tools source.
Header structure:
typedef struct {
///Trace file signature - should contain trace_file_magic
char magic[4];
///Major version of trace file format
u16 version_major;
///Minor version of trace file format
u16 version_minor;
///Trace raw data start
u16 data_start;
} prefetch_trace_header_t;
Trace record:
typedef struct {
kdev_t device;
unsigned long inode_no;
pgoff_t range_start;
pgoff_t range_length;
} prefetch_trace_record_t;
You can print the contents of the trace using prefetch-print-trace
utility included in prefetch userspace tools.
Init scripts (similar to readahead scripts) are run and they tell
kernel module which files to load and when.
So boot prefetching can be easily changed by modifying these scripts,
without touching the kernel part.
I noticed the phases stuff.
Have you considered instead using cgroups to collate them? Phases are
divided by time, which becomes problematic with a boot sequence running
in parallel.
A cgroups subsystem for prefetch would solve this, since cgroups are
inherited from parent to child.
E.g.
* rcS is placed into the boot cgroup
(thus all apps run by it are)
* rc2 is placed into the system cgroup
* gdm is placed into the gui cgroup
You can then still generate app prefetch lists for individual apps
(since apache can be started by hand, _and_ by rc2). But also we can
generate combined lists for each cgroup.
When I was writing this, cgroups were not available. But it seems like
a good idea. Can you tell something more how to use them?
CCing prefetch-devel mailing list, I think this list would be better
for further discussions as it is getting too much into details for
ubuntu-devel-discuss.
--
Krzysztof Lichota
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 14:07 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: Where/how are these lists of blocks stored? They are stored in /prefetch directory as prefetch lists for each traced app and for boot stages. Each file contains list of tuples (device, inode, start-in-pages, length-in-pages) which describe what to prefetch. What creates these files? A userspace daemon or the kernel module itself? Is this a real filesystem or a virtual one? The kernel module writes it. For boot prefetching, userspace script processes the lists as they are merged and sorted for last 3 runs. I noticed that you get lists (in /) for the phases, but files in /prefetch for applications named PATH-stamp? Could you give a little more detail on what files to expect, and what the content/format of those files are? What if the filesystem isn't mounted yet (/usr), how can the loading be staged? Boot prefetching is split into 3 phases: initial boot (with only root mounted), boot with all partitions mounted and GUI boot. Each stage has separate prefetching list. How are these phases delineated? Does the kernel need to be told what stage it is in, or does userspace determine which set of prefetch files may be used? Init scripts (similar to readahead scripts) are run and they tell kernel module which files to load and when. So boot prefetching can be easily changed by modifying these scripts, without touching the kernel part. I noticed the phases stuff. Have you considered instead using cgroups to collate them? Phases are divided by time, which becomes problematic with a boot sequence running in parallel. A cgroups subsystem for prefetch would solve this, since cgroups are inherited from parent to child. E.g. * rcS is placed into the boot cgroup (thus all apps run by it are) * rc2 is placed into the system cgroup * gdm is placed into the gui cgroup You can then still generate app prefetch lists for individual apps (since apache can be started by hand, _and_ by rc2). But also we can generate combined lists for each cgroup. Scott -- Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
One main problem I'm having with Hardy's boot process is that it looses about 40 seconds trying to resume i don't know what just before the bios finishes doing its things: kinit: trying to resume from /dev/disk/something kinit: no resume image, doing normal boot... After that, Hardy boots somewhat fast for me. This message is not shown by default, i have to press Alt+F1 to see it, -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Olá Sitsofe e a todos. On Saturday 17 May 2008 13:20:39 Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: posted mailed (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote: Olá Mackenzie e a todos. On Wednesday 14 May 2008 05:14:51 Mackenzie Morgan wrote: The results of using Bootchart to map the GNOME startup process, for the many users that did it, consistently showed gnome-panel as the culprit. How does one use bootchart to map GNOME? mine ends on X11. I just did a quick edit of /etc/init.d/stop-bootchart and added a sleep 30s just after start) . -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ I'll try that. -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) http://Ubuntu.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
posted mailed (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote: Olá Mackenzie e a todos. On Wednesday 14 May 2008 05:14:51 Mackenzie Morgan wrote: The results of using Bootchart to map the GNOME startup process, for the many users that did it, consistently showed gnome-panel as the culprit. How does one use bootchart to map GNOME? mine ends on X11. I just did a quick edit of /etc/init.d/stop-bootchart and added a sleep 30s just after start) . -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Le mercredi 14 mai 2008 à 18:10 -0400, Phillip Susi a écrit : Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 02:17 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Il giorno dom, 11/05/2008 alle 17.32 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan ha scritto: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 10:40 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote I wish I could configure what it considers low. You can: just launch gconf-editor and take a look at apps/gnome-power-manager/thresholds. It claims it hibernates when 2 minutes remain. It lies. Sounds like you need to replace your worn out battery pack then. Or just increase it to 5 minutes and see if that buys you enough time. Normally, gnome-power-manager should detect the real time left, and not only what the batteries claim. But if you never let the battery go until 0% without trying to stop the machine, I cannot see a way for g-p-m to calibrate that, since when your computer will shut down in the middle of the hibernation process, g-p-m has already been stopped. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Olá Markus e a todos. On Saturday 10 May 2008 16:34:55 Markus Hitter wrote: How would one notice? Is Hardys hibernating/standby still so flaky one is forced to shut down the computer more than once a month? You're lucky. I reboot mine once every 2/3 days... after that, GDM slows down to a crawl, sound goes way, and system slows down. Maybe such questions appear not serious to some and maybe it even looks like I want to disencourage you, but I'd be much more concerned about standby stability as about boot times. +1. Markus -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) http://Ubuntu.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Olá Mackenzie e a todos. On Wednesday 14 May 2008 05:14:51 Mackenzie Morgan wrote: The results of using Bootchart to map the GNOME startup process, for the many users that did it, consistently showed gnome-panel as the culprit. How does one use bootchart to map GNOME? mine ends on X11. -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) http://Ubuntu.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 02:17 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Il giorno dom, 11/05/2008 alle 17.32 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan ha scritto: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 10:40 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote I wish I could configure what it considers low. You can: just launch gconf-editor and take a look at apps/gnome-power-manager/thresholds. It claims it hibernates when 2 minutes remain. It lies. Sounds like you need to replace your worn out battery pack then. Or just increase it to 5 minutes and see if that buys you enough time. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 02:17 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Il giorno dom, 11/05/2008 alle 17.32 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan ha scritto: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 10:40 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote I wish I could configure what it considers low. You can: just launch gconf-editor and take a look at apps/gnome-power-manager/thresholds. It claims it hibernates when 2 minutes remain. It lies. Sounds like you need to replace your worn out battery pack then. Or just increase it to 5 minutes and see if that buys you enough time. It's not really worn out...it's still got 80% max capacity and over 2 hours of battery life. -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com -my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 08:32 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 03:37 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 08:28 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: Do you have a link to the discussion? Were things suposed to be any better in Hardy? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-session/+bug/128803 Someone said they'd heard it was fixed in Hardy, but subscribers say that is far from the case. Hmm I think that bug is rather different to what I'm reporting. That seems to be about GNOME being abnormally slow to the point where it takes minutes to start. Further, it seems to have become unfocused and extremely large potentially covering lots different issues. Sadly I don't think a bug like that can be resolved because too few can do the testing and report the information that would show where the real problem lies... The results of using Bootchart to map the GNOME startup process, for the many users that did it, consistently showed gnome-panel as the culprit. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 03:37 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 08:28 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: Do you have a link to the discussion? Were things suposed to be any better in Hardy? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-session/+bug/128803 Someone said they'd heard it was fixed in Hardy, but subscribers say that is far from the case. Hmm I think that bug is rather different to what I'm reporting. That seems to be about GNOME being abnormally slow to the point where it takes minutes to start. Further, it seems to have become unfocused and extremely large potentially covering lots different issues. Sadly I don't think a bug like that can be resolved because too few can do the testing and report the information that would show where the real problem lies... -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
2008/5/12 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 18:00 +0200, Wouter Stomp wrote: Quoting one of the last comments from the brainstorm idea: Hello everyone. I am the author of Google Summer of Code 2007 prefetching for Ubuntu. I did not get any feedback on prefetch project mailing list (or any other way), so I thought it is not used, and did not have motivation to further work on it. And then I have come across this site :) How weird, The author has certainly received many detailed questions from me, and has simply not answered them. Sorry about that. It just got lost in my mailbox. And about lack of feedback, I meant feedback from users. The kernel has been downloaded 280+ times and I got something like 2 reports from users. I don't know if it works or if it crashes somebody's machines. Problem with prefetch is that it's quite a lot of code, in different places, and zero documentation on how it works and which bit does what. I agree the documentation needs to be improved. I will add description of implementation in project wiki. The comparison with other prefetching solutions would also clear up things a bit. I have added to project downloads the presentation I gave at my university, it contains some slides about implementation details at the end. See: http://prefetch.googlecode.com/files/gsoc-prefetching-presentation.pdf 1) Documentation. A 1000ft overview explaining how prefetch works, what it does and doesn't do, what the pieces are and what they do and how it compares (technically) to readahead. Many information is on wiki pages (http://code.google.com/p/prefetch/), but it currently lack such high-level overview. I didn't find this very extensive, or explanatory. When we reviewed it, it didn't answer any of our questions about how prefetch worked. In short, in comparison to readahead: Readahead works by tracing which files are used, but it works on whole files. Prefetch has greater resolution as it works on pages. Readahead cannot do prefetching and profiling at the same time, separate boot with profiling must be done. Readahead profiling is expensive (uses inotify). Readahead needs manual intervention from user to change readahead list, prefetch adapts itself automatically. For example, how does it determine which blocks need prefetching? It monitors page cache to see which pages are used by processes. Where/how are these lists of blocks stored? They are stored in /prefetch directory as prefetch lists for each traced app and for boot stages. Each file contains list of tuples (device, inode, start-in-pages, length-in-pages) which describe what to prefetch. What decides when to load blocks? Blocks are loaded when application starts (for application prefetching) or when appropriate boot script is started (for boot prefetching). What if the filesystem isn't mounted yet (/usr), how can the loading be staged? Boot prefetching is split into 3 phases: initial boot (with only root mounted), boot with all partitions mounted and GUI boot. Each stage has separate prefetching list. Are the lists transferable between systems? No, they contain inode numbers and these differ on systems. If it is a matter of supplying predefined list, it is easy to write the tool which will convert paths to inodes upon first boot. Could we use the lists to sort the LiveCD filesystem generation? It depends what you want to do with it. If you want to feed the list to mksquashfs, it can be done. If you want to add prefetching list to live CD, this would be harder, as inode numbers are generated during generation of SquashFS image. Could we use the lists to sort the order in which we copy files during the install? You mean to copy in such order that after boot from disk the system boots faster? This is interesting issue. The list contains page ranges and I am not aware of any tool which allows to specify which ranges of files to copy and when. The ext3 allocator would reorganize it anyway. IMO running my reordering tool after copying would be simpler. Is prefetching done in block order to minimise disk head movement? Prefetch file is sorted using (device,inode,start) lexicographical order which should in general correspond to disk order. It could be extended to take into account block number, but I am not sure it is necessary. Disk scheduler will sort disk requests anyway. And it reordering tool is run, they will be in proper order on disk and in large chunks, so requests will be merged. How necessary is ext3 defrag to this working? It is completely optional, but it speeds up boot more, because necessary files can be read in large chunks without head movements. Do we still need readahead or preload with prefetch? Readahead should not be used together with prefetch as it uses its own prefetch lists. It could read unnecessary data and spoil performance. Preload has some heuristics to
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
\On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Krzysztof Lichota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where/how are these lists of blocks stored? They are stored in /prefetch directory as prefetch lists for each traced app and for boot stages. Each file contains list of tuples (device, inode, start-in-pages, length-in-pages) which describe what to prefetch. ... Could we use the lists to sort the LiveCD filesystem generation? It depends what you want to do with it. If you want to feed the list to mksquashfs, it can be done. If you want to add prefetching list to live CD, this would be harder, as inode numbers are generated during generation of SquashFS image. Presumably we could generate the /prefetch after generating the squashfs and just put it directly on the iso uncompressed? -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 17:34 +0200, Markus Hitter wrote: Am 10.05.2008 um 11:58 schrieb Sitsofe Wheeler: I've noticed that Ubuntu's boot speed seems to have taken a fall in Hardy. How would one notice? Is Hardys hibernating/standby still so flaky one is forced to shut down the computer more than once a month? You notice if you ever start a live CD (although really that's a different case). I notice because suspend to ram has never worked on my machine (there's already a year old bug in launchpad about it) and I like to know that any problems I find aren't due to a bad resume. Then there are machines using the open source NVIDIA drivers can't resume after suspend to ram in X due to a lack of information - http://katzj.livejournal.com/407566.html?thread=350990#t350990 . There are also machines that are used for shared logins. While they might not be shutdown you are affected by the time it takes for your desktop to appear after GDM... Maybe such questions appear not serious to some and maybe it even looks like I want to disencourage you, but I'd be much more concerned about standby stability as about boot times. Hey by all means fix my suspend to ram / resume issue - if you want to know more let me know. However there are always going to be times when you do a cold boot (e.g. after doing a kernel upgrade) and some people just prefer doing shutdowns. Ubuntu has focused on speedy boots in the past so it seems a shame to quietly erode that work. -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 09:48 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: Issues with slow-loading GNOME popped up in Gutsy. There's been a lot of discussion on that bug. It seems the gnome-panel just hangs for a while opening and closing something. Do you have a link to the discussion? Were things suposed to be any better in Hardy? -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 08:28 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 09:48 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: Issues with slow-loading GNOME popped up in Gutsy. There's been a lot of discussion on that bug. It seems the gnome-panel just hangs for a while opening and closing something. Do you have a link to the discussion? Were things suposed to be any better in Hardy? Bug #128803 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-session/+bug/128803 Someone said they'd heard it was fixed in Hardy, but subscribers say that is far from the case. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 12:53 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: It's curious Fedora 9 showed such poor results compared with Ubuntu (and compared with Fedora 8), given that they are listing fast Xorg boot as a feature. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OneSecondX I wouldn't say it is surprising compared to Ubuntu - if you look at the Fedora chart ( the dates link to charts like https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootCharting?action=AttachFiledo=gettarget=SitsofeWheeler-fedora-9-beta.png ) you can see the machine is massively CPU bound throughout and peak I/O throughput isn't that great (at least compared to distros with some sort of preload/readahead although one would need test the benefit of that versus the time it takes to do). Additionally some of its boot services seem to do a fair amount of writing to the disk causing kjournald to use up IO. Now Fedora are well known for including huge amounts of debugging in their kernels while the distro is in alpha/beta testing so perhaps this isn't yet representative of the true final speed. Compared to Fedora 8... something funny seems to be happening around udevsettle though (9s seconds versus 14s) and the time it takes for kernel to start appears to be longer in the F9 chart. Further the new gdm just isn't as fast at starting autologin as the old gdm (but you can't see that on the chart). Unlike the chart for Hardy though, there is only one small gap of no CPU/IO usage once userland has started so the long times don't seem to be predominantly due to a slow X (although Xorg is started twice so X speed will matter more in Fedora than Ubuntu). Rather, Fedora just seems to start and do a huge amount. It's definitely a distro for higher spec machines capable of crunching through stuff at a better. Looking at the services it starts it seems geared towards more traditional *nix corporate desktops / servers. I'll be interested to see if the fast Xorg boot stuff in the upcoming Xorg 1.5 will boost our boot numbers, or if the Xorg boot time just gets lost in the noise. I should think it would help (at least in the time to the clock test rather than to gdm) as GNOME tasks should be kicked off sooner. However fake gains could be made by allowing GNOME to be responsive even when the clock (which is often the last applet to load) hasn't finished loading. However if more GNOME utilities need to be started any gains will be washed away in the autologin case. Some more boot comparisons can be seen on http://www.harald-hoyer.de/linux/boot-time-distro-comparison . -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Il giorno dom, 11/05/2008 alle 00.07 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan ha scritto: Some people simply don't bother hibernate/suspend. If you forget your laptop unplugged (and this can happen to every human being) having proper suspend is the only way to be sure not to lose data. Vincenzo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Sam Tygier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Intrepid seems to me like a good time to include the prefetching work that was done in 2007 summer of code. and maybe preload as well (more for application load time than boot time), if the two can work together. Quoting one of the last comments from the brainstorm idea: Hello everyone. I am the author of Google Summer of Code 2007 prefetching for Ubuntu. I did not get any feedback on prefetch project mailing list (or any other way), so I thought it is not used, and did not have motivation to further work on it. And then I have come across this site :) I will soon be working on adapting my prefetching solution to K/Ubuntu 8.10, so I need as much information about performance, problems, regressions, etc. as possible. Please send comments about prefetching to mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] (no subscription necessary, just send e-mail) or report bugs on Launchpad project (https://launchpad.net/prefetch/). TIA Krzysztof Lichota -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Il giorno dom, 11/05/2008 alle 00.07 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan ha scritto: Some people simply don't bother hibernate/suspend. If you forget your laptop unplugged (and this can happen to every human being) having proper suspend is the only way to be sure not to lose data. Or you could just set your laptop to power-down on critical battery. Or just remember to turn it off. -FFM signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Il giorno dom, 11/05/2008 alle 12.20 -0400, ffm ha scritto: Or you could just set your laptop to power-down on critical battery. This won't save me from loosing what I didn't save (hopefully, I will use only editors with good autosave capabilities but I don't know the general situation) Or just remember to turn it off. I just provided what I consider the strongest argument in favour of suspend-to-disk. Sometimes when I am traveling I forget to check the battery because I am under pressure and I have to work until the last bit of battery. Seeing the laptop suddenly die is a pity. I understand that there is a general mood to consider suspend-to-disk an unnecessary toy (at least this seems to be reflected by the status of suspend-to-disk in many linux distributions - on ubuntu we don't even have the text progress bar of suspend-to-disk, and nobody that I asked to knows why). However, there are good reason to consider it useful on laptops. I am nowadays using an old laptop that has no longer a battery, because mine is broken. On this model suspend-to-disk works like a charm. When I have to move the laptop from an office to the other, it's so helpful to be able to just suspend it and not closing all applications, you likely can't even imagine. And by the way, ubuntu is the perfect software for an older laptop, and works fast and pretty :) Vincenzo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Il giorno dom, 11/05/2008 alle 17.32 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan ha scritto: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 10:40 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote I wish I could configure what it considers low. You can: just launch gconf-editor and take a look at apps/gnome-power-manager/thresholds. Vincenzo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 10:58 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: Hi, I've noticed that Ubuntu's boot speed seems to have taken a fall in Hardy. Anecdotally I believe that Gutsy was the fastest but from a viewable stats perspective the fall can be seen in Feisty versus Hardy on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootCharting#head-dca0372aa8fd490a9717ad0c72c9b400c236a581 . While not as slow as other distros it is a shame to see things slow down a bit. Of special interest to me is the fall in time to usable auto-login desktop case as this is something I use regularly. It seems that modern Ubuntu simply has more to do/start after a user logs in... Issues with slow-loading GNOME popped up in Gutsy. There's been a lot of discussion on that bug. It seems the gnome-panel just hangs for a while opening and closing something. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
Am 10.05.2008 um 11:58 schrieb Sitsofe Wheeler: I've noticed that Ubuntu's boot speed seems to have taken a fall in Hardy. How would one notice? Is Hardys hibernating/standby still so flaky one is forced to shut down the computer more than once a month? Maybe such questions appear not serious to some and maybe it even looks like I want to disencourage you, but I'd be much more concerned about standby stability as about boot times. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:58:12AM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: I've noticed that Ubuntu's boot speed seems to have taken a fall in Hardy. Anecdotally I believe that Gutsy was the fastest but from a viewable stats perspective the fall can be seen in Feisty versus Hardy on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootCharting#head-dca0372aa8fd490a9717ad0c72c9b400c236a581 While not as slow as other distros it is a shame to see things slow down a bit. It's curious Fedora 9 showed such poor results compared with Ubuntu (and compared with Fedora 8), given that they are listing fast Xorg boot as a feature. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OneSecondX I'll be interested to see if the fast Xorg boot stuff in the upcoming Xorg 1.5 will boost our boot numbers, or if the Xorg boot time just gets lost in the noise. Bryce -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 17:34 +0200, Markus Hitter wrote: Am 10.05.2008 um 11:58 schrieb Sitsofe Wheeler: I've noticed that Ubuntu's boot speed seems to have taken a fall in Hardy. How would one notice? Is Hardys hibernating/standby still so flaky one is forced to shut down the computer more than once a month? Some people simply don't bother hibernate/suspend. I didn't know my computer suspended properly until someone asked a few weeks ago and I tested it out. I've had this laptop for nearly two years. Just because you use hibernate all the time doesn't mean everyone else does. I like properly shutting down so anything with memory leaks is sure to be cleared out. Plus, didn't you hear about one of the new exploits where they can run strings on your memory and pull out your passwords from it? If the memory's been powerless for a few minutes, it'll likely be all clear, but if you suspend and don't keep a sharp eye on your laptop (making sure no one tampers), stealing your passwords becomes very easy. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
