Parallelizing bootscripts [was: Make bootscripts more POSIX compliant]

TheOldFellow theoldfellow at gmail.com
Tue Feb 20 12:20:36 PST 2007


Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On 2/20/07, Joe Ciccone <jciccone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>>>> On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
>>>> about doing this?  DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
>>>> the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (basically, by making
>>>> them LSB compliant, you make them easy to run in parallel).  Should we
>>>> look into making these scripts the default, perhaps for LFS 6.4 or 7?
>>>> (And should we actually run them in parallel or not?)
>>>>
>>> I'm all for parallelizing the boot scripts. The only thing I'm having a
>>> hard time getting my head around is updating the screen with the status.
>> +1 here, too, so long as they can be proved reliable, etc. I haven't
>> gotten around to playing with DJ's scripts, but I will soon.
> 
> I guess I still don't understand the need for this.  I just did a test
> on my laptop and it took 18 seconds from the time I pushed enter from
> grub to a login prompt.  This included udev, dbus, hal, sshd, nfsd, but
> not X, ntp, or bringing up my wifi card.
> 
> If I cut the boot time in half and rebooted my system seven times a day
> (I rarely boot it more than twice, normally once.), I will save one minute.
> 
> If this is done for the challenge, I can understand that, but I don't
> think that the the benefit is significant.
> 
>   -- Bruce

Dan's OP was 'use dash to speed up booting' (over-compressed
over-simplification).  I said you'd do better by parallelising the
service start ups.  Nothing here that says it's at all worth while to do
either really.  It's an intellectual exercise!

R.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list