Comments on: Ubuntu 9.10 Boot Performance, and Does it Matter?

By: tux821

tux821 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:05:51 +0000

Ok, just for fun..

This weekend I tested Moblin 2.1 on my Aspire One 110
Woow great boot time.

Just to experiment I extracted (using dubble loop mount on live image) the Moblin kernel and kernel modules.
Then I did put those into my Ubuntu 9.10 install.

Boom.. pretty cool, now I have a super fast booting Ubuntu 9.10.

The trick is in the initrd not being used by the Moblin 2.1 kernel.

By: the_madman

the_madman — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:31:24 +0000

Question: If boot-up was as quick as sleep/hibernate, or even somewhere close, and would save you electricity (promising longer battery life), would you suspend your computer? For the vast majority of cases, I wouldn’t: the only times I need to sleep is when I need to continue what I’m currently doing elsewhere. When I’m done with my task, I shut down: I suspect many other people would as well, if booting up was continually getting faster (5 seconds, anyone?).

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:47:28 +0000

Boot times do matter. Most desktop and laptop users (or even server users, like yourself) may not care about it, but it matters because ubuntu is trying (hard) to take over the netbook market. It matters a lot on those low power machines. I have an older laptop and Ubuntu 8.10 actually takes about 70 seconds to boot up. So it matters for people with older hardware too. The other reason it matters is that with time, software bloat increases, and someone has to do something about it. If the developers didn’t do anything, the newest version of ubuntu might actually take 70 seconds to boot on your server class hardware, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want to use it then because it would be too “slow”.

By: Dylan

Dylan — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:01:37 +0000

As a college student, I can say that fast boot and shutdown speeds are major concerns when using netbooks (I don’t have one, but see them often). If your next class is in 10 minutes and you have to go up 5 floors or to another building, waiting for your netbook to shutdown so you can safely store it or waiting for it to boot after you arrive late at your next class are not options. I hope Ubuntu can corner the netbook market…its cheap, effective, lightweight, and very stable, perfect for the light processing power of the netbook. Also, most college students have some level of computer knowledge, and using Ubuntu, I feel, is a good way to exercise your inner geek. Linux lets it all hang out, you understand how your computer works more when running linux when compared to Windows…where things like the registry, system32 folder, and msconfig can scare people pretty easily because they are not understood and can be quite dangerous to mess with. Boot performance can also lead to vast improvements in handheld PC’s, smartphones, mp3 players, and all kinds of imbedded devices. Speed is good, maybe great, but it should not steal too much of the spotlight.

By: windmonger

windmonger — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:03:13 +0000

Fast boot times matter but not as much as the overall speed, responsiveness and stability of the system. Light distros such as Puppy Linux and Antix MEPIS still use antiquated kernels but they perform more snappily than Ubuntu.

By: the daddy

the daddy — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:15:03 +0000

I am looking forward to faster boottimes…you are on the exact right track. when windows first come out its boottime was good..and i figured with each new release it would get faster. WRONG it got slower..then moved onto the operating sytem. BTW I think alot people do not know how to set there cmos or pick a board..cause about half that bootup time is issued due to cmos. I am booting on nvidia board in 13 seconds on 9.04 using a 80 gig western digital sata 1 and 3800 amd with 1 gig ram. I will make a video later showing my system board and all and me pushing button from button up to using firefox. windows 7. boots in lil over 35 seconds.

By: JanC

JanC — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:42:24 +0000

The “reference machine” that Canonical uses for boot time testing is a Dell Mini 9 (with an Atom CPU & SSD disk).

And it’s true that until now the speedups were mostly not from using upstart (that might change in karmic though).

See: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/BootPerformance

By: ooboo

ooboo — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:51:11 +0000

What is also at hand is the difference between ‘image’ and ‘reality’. The image that Ubuntu is trying to present is of a polished, stable, and useable alternative OS. The reality, is that Ubuntu (appearantly) exercises very little control over the quality of what they release, and instead relies too heavily on the end-users of its official releases to uncover and push through the sort of fixes that should have occured well before the official release took place. I don’t know how long Ubuntu thinks it can keep up this deception. Users are getting wise to them. Personally, I’ve already taken a “wait and see” approach to all new Ubuntu releases. I’ll never install a new release on one of my computers until it’s had at least a month of testing and feedback from the user base. Maybe Ubuntu should call it’s current .04 and .10 releases ‘development releases’, and push back the official public release to .05 and .11.

By: ooboo

ooboo — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:50:40 +0000

@Jef: First of all, let me say I’m enjoying the lively discussion.

Despite the points where we seem to clash, I am seeing there are some key areas where we appear to be in agreement.

I started this thread by basically saying that Ubuntu needs to head-off these fiascos before they happen – ideally, by catching them before they are included in the official releases.

Now, you are saying Ubuntu would benefit from getting more of it’s people involved in upstream development, particularly in key areas of the system, which are more prone to creating critical problems.

> Someone inside the Ubuntu needs to step up and be active in upstream development in all the critically important projects … whatever mistakes Ubuntu devs made in judgement with regard to the intel issue..can only be prevented in the future for other similar situations if Ubuntu grows manpower who are actively involved in upstream development..and not just consuming that development … Someone inside the Ubuntu needs to step up and be active in upstream development in all the critically important projects.

Look, you’ve made a good argument for greater Ubuntu participation in upstream development, thereby taking a more proactive stance against bugs and compatibility issues. I don’t dissagree. Aren’t we just splitting hairs here? We both seem to be saying that more Quality Assurance needs to happen. You’re suggesting a specific way of implimenting that, whereas I’m just taking a more general approach in saying we need to produce a less buggy end-product, and I don’t care how, just get it done.

Personally, I don’t care which part of the ’stream’ gets the increase in attention, just so long as it gets done before that code is put ‘into the wild’ in an official release. Otherwise we are making end-users into unsuspecting beta testers, and I don’t think that’s right. I also don’t think you should make a product, and give everyone the impression that it’s ‘production-ready’, when you very well know it isn’t – or more accurately, when you have so very little proof that it is.

By: Yaro

Yaro — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:26:40 +0000

Oh, and I think a fixed six-month release cycle is a mistake. I think they should do a rolling release (A la arch.) or a “Next release will come ‘when its ready.’” a la Debian.