On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Kok, Auke-jan H <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Reindl Harald <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> Am 18.03.2013 19:45, schrieb Kay Sievers: >>> I put an SSD in that crappy box today; it's down from 25 to 7 sec on >>> the otherwise identical system. :) >>> >>> So I'll not need to debug any rotating media issues, I don't have any >>> of them again. :) >> >> this is nice for you >> >> but keep in mind that for professional environments for many >> years SSD is no option for some TB of data and even if >> the price falls down you have to calculate redundancy for >> RAID10 environemnts which can not be raplced by a SSD >> due lack of relieability and no real-world expierience >> how long they run and how you detect errors before it is >> too late > > I'm of the same mindset. > > For some time to come, many people will continue to purchase lower end > systems without SSD's, and we want to offer them a compelling OS that > outperforms the competitors in all aspects, including boot time. > > So, I consider the bad performance on non-SSD's a bug, and I'm looking > at trying to find a solution.
For those with spinning drives with ext3/4 (NOT btrfs), please test the patch I just posted - it should make a modest difference. While I'm not certain the total boot time will improve (the numbers don't show a significant difference there), it seems to have a major effect at making udev and mount finish a lot faster - on my test system things like low level dbus services started 5-7 seconds earlier. Auke _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
