Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-23 Thread JB
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-19 Thread Camilo Mesias
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Kay Sievers
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Horst H. von Brand
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Kay Sievers
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Horst H. von Brand
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread JB
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Jef Spaleta
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread JB
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Jef Spaleta
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Bill Nottingham
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-05 Thread Jef Spaleta
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,

Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread JB
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Adam Jackson
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread drago01
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Adam Miller
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,

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Tom Callaway
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;

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread JB
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Jef Spaleta
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 --

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Jef Spaleta
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread JB
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

2011-10-04 Thread Adam Williamson
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