Camilo Mesias camilo at mesias.co.uk writes:
Hi,
I tried some of these changes and they seemed to work reasonably well
apart from the grub2 infrastructure is still a bit immature at running
without initrd... specifically
...
I'm not sure where to report this? Bugs against grub2 or
Hi,
I tried some of these changes and they seemed to work reasonably well
apart from the grub2 infrastructure is still a bit immature at running
without initrd... specifically
* I couldn't find a way to tell the grub2 scripts in /etc/grub.d
(10_linux) that I didn't want initrd; I can edit out
On 10/05/2011 02:41 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
You can try rebuilding your live image with this patch to
spin-kickstarts:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739446
to see if it makes any difference. it migrates the livesys stuff to
systemd, at least to an extent.
--
Migrating
On Tue, 04.10.11 19:38, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 15:53 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me append The Blame Game.
# systemd-analyze blame
32983ms livesys.service
22828ms
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 15:09, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, 04.10.11 19:38, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 15:53 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me append The Blame
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, 04.10.11 21:01, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
Results interpretation.
---
Knoppix won by a wide margin, while:
- Knoppix having microknoppix fast-parallel boot (based on SysV/LSB scripts)
and DE with low
On Tue, 04.10.11 19:40, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 16:55 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
13837ms udev-settle.service
11392ms plymouth-start.service
if you use the plot option
On Wed, 05.10.11 10:17, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, 04.10.11 21:01, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
Results interpretation.
---
Knoppix won by a wide margin, while:
- Knoppix having
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 15:28, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, 04.10.11 19:40, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 16:55 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
13837ms
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
[Optimize boot on CD]
Optimizations like this are always thinkable, but then again spending
the time on optimizing CD boots sounds like a lot of time wasted on
yesterday's technology.
Humm... for a LiveCD for forensic work (at least) it should
On Wed, 05.10.11 11:40, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
[Optimize boot on CD]
Optimizations like this are always thinkable, but then again spending
the time on optimizing CD boots sounds like a lot of time wasted on
JB jb.1234abcd at gmail.com writes:
...
The only difference to previous run is that ethernet cable (with good ISP
service) was plugged in during boot time.
You can see userspace time, and thus total time reduced by more than 300%.
# less -i /var/log/messages
...
Oct 5 05:33:51 localhost
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
So essentially all that's going on here is 'wait for udev to be done',
which is a fairly sensible prerequisite for all manner of other bits of
boot.
The reasons why udev takes a while to be 'done' are more interesting
Jef Spaleta jspaleta at gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
wrote:
So essentially all that's going on here is 'wait for udev to be done',
which is a fairly sensible prerequisite for all manner of other bits of
boot.
The reasons
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:22 AM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Here it is.
No..that's not it.. that is the starting point necessary to understand
the udev differences between the two systems. It is not a dissection.
To understand what is happening with udev across those systems you
have to
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 15:28 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Please, don't claim that udev settle was a sensible prerequisite. It
isn't. It has no place in today's dynamic hardware.
Thanks for the correction.
(you might want to talk to the anaconda team, then, because liveinst
runs 'udevadm
Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) said:
Any system service that today relies in its core on 'udevadm settle'
or scsi-wait-scan module, or any of the other bad hacks in that
category, anything that uses these barriers as a checkpoint to block
on, to do its synchronous actions, should be
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org wrote:
There is no general rule, but anything that calls 'udevadm settle' is
suspicious and should be carefully checked if it does not rely on
assumptions which just bet on luck and can't reliably work in hotplug
setups.
Kay,
Hi,
I performed a simple home test, a comparison of startup and shutdown times of:
- Live-CD Fedora 16 beta - systemd parallel boot, GNOME 3
- Live-CD Knoppix 6.7.1 - microknoppix-fast-parallel-boot (based on SysV/LSB
scripts), LXDE;
note that
On Tue, 04.10.11 21:01, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
Results interpretation.
---
Knoppix won by a wide margin, while:
- Knoppix having microknoppix fast-parallel boot (based on SysV/LSB scripts)
and DE with low resources usage and tailored for desktops
- Fedora
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 23:45 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Another bigger source of slowness at boot is currently Plymouth which
also requires synchronous settling of devices (tough it's not as bad as
LVM in that regard though, but costs too since EDID probing is
apparently quite slow, and
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, 04.10.11 21:01, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
Results interpretation.
---
Knoppix won by a wide margin, while:
- Knoppix having microknoppix fast-parallel boot (based on SysV/LSB
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:59:09PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
And *sendmail* (in my vms it takes up to 60s to start even though I
never use it; and I it does not really make much sense on desktops).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoMTA
Yeah ... I was technically the owner on that one,
On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, JB wrote:
I performed a simple home test, a comparison of startup and shutdown times of:
- Live-CD Fedora 16 beta - systemd parallel boot, GNOME 3
- Live-CD Knoppix 6.7.1 - microknoppix-fast-parallel-boot (based on SysV/LSB
scripts), LXDE;
On Tue, 04.10.11 17:54, Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 23:45 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Another bigger source of slowness at boot is currently Plymouth which
also requires synchronous settling of devices (tough it's not as bad as
LVM in that regard
JB jb.1234abcd at gmail.com writes:
...
Notebook 1:
---
Lenovo TP R61i, Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo 1.86 GHZ, Intel Mobile 965GM,
2 GB RAM, HD, CD-RW, sound, internal ethernet and wireless.
F16 beta
average t1=3m8s
average t2=10s
...
Let me append The Blame Game.
# less -i
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me append The Blame Game.
# systemd-analyze blame
32983ms livesys.service
22828ms NetworkManager.service
That timing for NM is so vastly different than what I'm seeing on my
installed F15 system. I am intrigued.
-jef
--
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
13837ms udev-settle.service
11392ms plymouth-start.service
if you use the plot option instead of blame option and produce the svg
of the service timing you get a better feel for what Lennart was
talking about with regard to the
Jef Spaleta jspaleta at gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234abcd at gmail.com wrote:
Let me append The Blame Game.
# systemd-analyze blame
32983ms livesys.service
22828ms NetworkManager.service
That timing for NM is so vastly different than what I'm seeing
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 15:53 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me append The Blame Game.
# systemd-analyze blame
32983ms livesys.service
22828ms NetworkManager.service
That timing for NM is so vastly different than what I'm
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 16:55 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
13837ms udev-settle.service
11392ms plymouth-start.service
if you use the plot option instead of blame option and produce the svg
of the service timing you get a
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 23:32 +, JB wrote:
JB jb.1234abcd at gmail.com writes:
...
Notebook 1:
---
Lenovo TP R61i, Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo 1.86 GHZ, Intel Mobile 965GM,
2 GB RAM, HD, CD-RW, sound, internal ethernet and wireless.
F16 beta
average t1=3m8s
average
32 matches
Mail list logo