Hi RH,
Thank you for your valuable input. I'm glad to see awesome results like
Laurent was posting validated by another user. 1.6s is still incredible
and totally useful for what we're doing. Are these results reported from a
stock BBB?
Are your sequence of steps similar to Laurent?
Thank
Hi Richard, thanks for those precisions...
> But what's your boot time?
The last time I tested on older BB hardware felt around 12 sec +/- 1 sec.
(Have to set it up again to get precise time via dmesg) Have to try this
on BBB and I'm very encouraged to read about these sub-2 sec times!!
FYI,
Hi Richard, thanks for pointing this out... we can probably make our own
but its good to know this right away.
Will continue to investigate... looks like 3 sec is reasonable to attain
but getting closer to 1 going to require external help and some hard
structural choices on our part... :)
>
systemd is supposed to make boot times even faster compared to the older /
std debian init daemon. The problem I personally have with systemd, is that
I'm oldschool Linux, know init fairly well, and can not find very good
information about systemd on the web.
Ok, and child can make systemd do thes
On 11/10/2014 03:37 PM, William Hermans wrote:
systemd is supposed to make boot times even faster compared to the older
/ std debian init daemon. The problem I personally have with systemd, is
that I'm oldschool Linux, know init fairly well, and can not find very
good information about systemd on
Probably what I need is an exact steps simple example to give me that "ah
ha!" moment.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:06 PM, William Hermans wrote:
> Mike, Hi,
>
> Yes, I found all of that stuff, and it is great, but basically still is a
> toy. By this I mean outside of graphing startup times etc, th
Mike, Hi,
Yes, I found all of that stuff, and it is great, but basically still is a
toy. By this I mean outside of graphing startup times etc, that is not very
useful. Perhaps what I am really after is syscntl information, but with the
limited time I've had lately, I have not been able to find muc
Hi all, many thanks for this insightful discussion.
Q: Is systemd a viable option to optimize boot-time on ARM embedded
platforms? (Given its steeper learning curve are the results worth the
extra work / risk over 'init'?)
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <
m...@avtec
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Jean-Pierre Poulin
wrote:
> Hi all, many thanks for this insightful discussion.
>
> Q: Is systemd a viable option to optimize boot-time on ARM embedded
> platforms? (Given its steeper learning curve are the results worth the
> extra work / risk over 'init'?)
"opt
On 11/11/2014 09:19 AM, Jean-Pierre Poulin wrote:
Hi all, many thanks for this insightful discussion.
Q: Is systemd a viable option to optimize boot-time on ARM embedded
platforms? (Given its steeper learning curve are the results worth the
extra work / risk over 'init'?)
I've attached the ou
Hi MJC, thank you very much for that plot... impressive results and an
insightful test to do to identify what can be sped up.
Robert: thanks for that comment... we'll go systemd for sure now! :)
On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 9:38:53 AM UTC-5, mjc wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2014 09:19 AM, Jean-Pierre Po
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Jean-Pierre Poulin
wrote:
> Hi MJC, thank you very much for that plot... impressive results and an
> insightful test to do to identify what can be sped up.
>
> Robert: thanks for that comment... we'll go systemd for sure now! :)
If you really look back, pre-system
Supercool. We're hoping to reduce boot-time by using open-source based
solutions so following the latest systemd-based efforts appears as the next
logical step. Thanks a bunch for that useful advice!!
On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, RobertCNelson wrote:
> Then Lennart release
Q: Have you guys ever tried reducing boot-times through a hibernate-based
solution? (e.g. Warp) How do these stackup versus efforts to fast-boot
Linux as detailed in this thread?
On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:13:20 PM UTC-5, Jean-Pierre Poulin wrote:
>
> Supercool. We're hoping to reduce
Yeah, what Robert said is pretty much what I've read. SYSV is partially
parallel loading, where systemd is "fully" parallel.
My own problems with getting used to it is mostly due to not knowing how to
do the equivalent of a Debian LSB init script ( service ) work.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:15 AM
I wonder if systemd is so magical why it is not used by any of PC's Linux
distributions?
2014-11-11 22:45 GMT+03:00 William Hermans :
> Yeah, what Robert said is pretty much what I've read. SYSV is partially
> parallel loading, where systemd is "fully" parallel.
>
> My own problems with getting u
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Maxim Podbereznyy wrote:
> I wonder if systemd is so magical why it is not used by any of PC's Linux
> distributions?
>
It looks well represented, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Adoption
--
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
---
You re
Maxim, for distro's like Debian which is slow moving for stability reason.
I would imagine the Debian team wants the technology proven before they
make the leap. From what I understand, the next iteration of Debian *will*
include systemd, and it is an apt-get-able package for wheezy right now.
Als
Also, as far as I know. ARCH uses systemd by default. However, since I do
not personally use ARCH, this is pure speculation on my own behalf. I've
also read that fedora, and a few others use systemd as well.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:35 PM, William Hermans wrote:
> Maxim, for distro's like Debia
If this is for automotive ，systemd is not so useful
last mode is required when in automotive enviroment
while as I know systemd can not turnning boot sequence for different
modules
If not about automotive ,skip this .
And，if only talking about 0.5s or 1s , its only about u-boot and kernel
what I t
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:09 PM, liyaoshi wrote:
> If this is for automotive ，systemd is not so useful
> last mode is required when in automotive enviroment
> while as I know systemd can not turnning boot sequence for different modules
> If not about automotive ,skip this .
> And，if only talking a
This is depends on your SOC main clock and cache size and nand /eMMC read
speed
If on 512K L2 cache and over than 1G ， lzo MAYBE will beat uncompressed
but in less than 500M and with very fast nand 16bit EDO ddr mode /eMMC
50M@8bit with ADMA
what I get test result is raw (uncompressed) kernel imag
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ltnedy59gv5i70j/VID_20140723_084207.mp4
This is what I have done in my iMX6 solo @800M 16bit ddr board
2014-11-12 11:22 GMT+08:00 liyaoshi :
> This is depends on your SOC main clock and cache size and nand /eMMC read
> speed
> If on 512K L2 cache and over than 1G ， lzo
Hi,
On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:35:13 AM UTC+2, William Hermans wrote:
>
> Maxim, for distro's like Debian which is slow moving for stability reason.
>
Who says that Debian is not using it? [1]
Regards,
Robert
[1]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/21/unix_greybeards_threaten_debian
Yaoshi, really nice job! If you could share some instructions on how to
make imx6 boot faster - it would be great!
2014-11-12 10:30 GMT+03:00 robert.berger :
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:35:13 AM UTC+2, William Hermans wrote:
>>
>> Maxim, for distro's like Debian which is slow movi
As I said
1) Turn mmu and cache on,use dma in u-boot, remove any you dont needed code
2) Remove code you dont needed , or make as modules in kernel
3) Dont print in serial port
4) And use wayland instead of X11
5) make sure font cache prepared in write able folder
Some not so good options
1)ove
You should define what "boot time" is.
You could say that is:
• The time that that takes to your device from power on until you can
run a user space program.
• Power on until getting X11
• Power on until ssh connection
Did your <2 seconds means this the first option? Or only the kernel logs?
On
Yaoshi,
for the first point - is it possible to enable MMU/DMA just by checking
some options in the ENV file or it requires hard code hacking?
2014-11-12 12:19 GMT+03:00 Adrian Remonda :
> You should define what "boot time" is.
>
> You could say that is:
> • The time that that takes to your devi
On 2014-11-11 at 16:35:02 -0700, William Hermans wrote:
> Maxim, for distro's like Debian which is slow moving for stability reason.
> I would imagine the Debian team wants the technology proven before they
> make the leap. From what I understand, the next iteration of Debian *will*
> include syste
I use hard code
2014-11-12 17:38 GMT+08:00 Maxim Podbereznyy :
> Yaoshi,
>
> for the first point - is it possible to enable MMU/DMA just by checking
> some options in the ENV file or it requires hard code hacking?
>
>
> 2014-11-12 12:19 GMT+03:00 Adrian Remonda :
>
>> You should define what "boot
less than 2 seconds get in first shell ,and about 5 seconds get in first qt
demo for wayland client
2014-11-12 17:19 GMT+08:00 Adrian Remonda :
> You should define what "boot time" is.
>
> You could say that is:
> • The time that that takes to your device from power on until you can
> run a user
@robert.berger,
Did you read my whole post ?
william@eee-pc:~$ uname -a
> Linux eee-pc 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.60-1+deb7u3 i686 GNU/Linux
> william@eee-pc:~$ pstree
> init─┬─acpid
> ├─cron
> ├─dbus-daemon
> ├─6*[getty]
> ├─nmbd
> ├─rpc.idmapd
> ├─rpc.mountd
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:22 AM, William Hermans wrote:
> @robert.berger,
>
> Did you read my whole post ?
>
>> william@eee-pc:~$ uname -a
>> Linux eee-pc 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.60-1+deb7u3 i686 GNU/Linux
>> william@eee-pc:~$ pstree
>> init─┬─acpid
>> ├─cron
>> ├─dbus-daemon
Which is pretty much what I said yesterday.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Robert Nelson
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:22 AM, William Hermans
> wrote:
> > @robert.berger,
> >
> > Did you read my whole post ?
> >
> >> william@eee-pc:~$ uname -a
> >> Linux eee-pc 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP D
From: Jean-Pierre Poulin
Reply-To: "beagleboard@googlegroups.com"
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 9:15 AM
To: "beagleboard@googlegroups.com"
Subject: Re: [beagleboard] Re: Recommendation to boot / resume Linux in
less than a second...
> Q: Have you guys ever tr
Hi John, thanks for the heads up on that patch.
When you say it doesn't work at this time, is it because it's temporarily
broken for embedded? If it gets fixed, would you recommend this patch for
our needs?
Q1: Given several senior devs are reporting amazing 1s boot-time on i.MX6,
should I ta
Hi Liyaoshi, thanks for reporting these incredible results!!!
However your link appears broken, could you verify? Thanks man!!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ltnedy59gv5i70j/VID_20140723_084207.mp4
This is what I have done in my iMX6 solo @800M 16bit ddr board
--
For more options, visit http://b
On 11/12/2014 01:10 PM, John Syn wrote:
Q: Have you guys ever tried reducing boot-times through a
hibernate-based solution? (e.g. Warp) How do these stackup versus
efforts to fast-boot Linux as detailed in this thread?
This won’t work at this time:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/li
On 11/12/14, 1:45 PM, "Nishanth Menon" wrote:
>On 11/12/2014 01:10 PM, John Syn wrote:
>>
>> Q: Have you guys ever tried reducing boot-times through a
>> hibernate-based solution? (e.g. Warp) How do these stackup versus
>> efforts to fast-boot Linux as detailed in this thread?
>>
>
Question: The Freescale i.MX6 has been mentioned by several boot-time gurus
as their go-to chip for ultra-fast boot. Unfortunately the i.MX6 is
overkill for our price-sensitive application. Which 'other chips' in the
i.MX family have the sophisticated ROM bootloader that can duplicate the
fast
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jean-Pierre Poulin
wrote:
> Question: The Freescale i.MX6 has been mentioned by several boot-time gurus
> as their go-to chip for ultra-fast boot. Unfortunately the i.MX6 is
> overkill for our price-sensitive application. Which 'other chips' in the
> i.MX family
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Robert Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jean-Pierre Poulin
> wrote:
>> Question: The Freescale i.MX6 has been mentioned by several boot-time gurus
>> as their go-to chip for ultra-fast boot. Unfortunately the i.MX6 is
>> overkill for our price-s
Thank you very much Robert for that heads up... wasn't aware Sitara
architecture could do this as well...
Q: How does falcon boot on Sitara compare with sub-one-second boottime on
i.MX6?
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:54:18 PM UTC-5, RobertCNelson wrote:
>
>
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/pub/U
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Pierre Poulin
wrote:
> Thank you very much Robert for that heads up... wasn't aware Sitara
> architecture could do this as well...
>
> Q: How does falcon boot on Sitara compare with sub-one-second boottime on
> i.MX6?
I'd say, it should take you at-least a h
44 matches
Mail list logo
