What is Digg?126 Comments
- livevil, on 11/13/2007, -2/+44Be careful, most of these optimizations if done wrong will break your system.
- hansblix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33Thanks for letting us know, could you please comment on every story on digg and say whether it interests you or not?
Cause I only want to read what SwissCamel is interested in. - swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2319 seconds, last time I had that kind of boot time the computer was called a 286/12.
- reyalp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Try the first sentence under "Setup"
- neko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17It's not how fast you can get it up, it's how long it STAYS up that counts :D
- fak3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17You damn kids an your fast bootin' komputers, in my day, with the punch cards and all, we'd be lucky if our routines would run before the harvest!
- jsully, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13For a lot of people the best and safest optimization you can make is to disable the "configuring network interfaces" step alltogether. If you're using network manager after you login this won't have any drawbacks. There's no point in having the system configure the network interface on bootup only have have network manager do it again after you login. This is even more pronounced for laptop users that need to select a wireless AP after login.
Here is a good guide I found:
http://ubuntu.wordpress.com/2006/01/31/configuring-network-interfaces/ - mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13you mean you can see the desktop or you can USE the desktop?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Most of the tweaks can be done using BootUp-Manager.
http://www.marzocca.net/linux/bum.html - trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Wow, I have no idea how I missed that :)
- raze888, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Electric bill? Maybe there isn't a reason for his second workstation to be running night and day? It's not too hard to figure out, even for a Windows user.
- wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16...you guys have to be lying or have INCREDIBLE hardware.
I'm on a q6600 overclocked to 3ghz, 2gb ram, 8800gts(if that's relevant), and it takes me at LEAST 35 seconds from the power button to a fully started desktop. - silicon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12probably can make it also boot faster by compiling a custom kernel so it doesn't try to load modules/drivers for devices you don't have.
- vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10VMware is the same way. On our VMware server, 2.33Ghz Quad core Xeon 8GB 667Mhz FB-DIMM, WinXP boots in 3-4 seconds tops.
It's mainly to do with disk access. When windows is booting, until the ide/sata controller drivers are loaded, you are accessing the disks in a VERY slow legacy (non-DMA) mode. Whereas doing the same in VMware (or parallels), the controller is already using DMA, and at least in the case of VMware on linux, there is aggressive disk caching going on as well. - sonochamp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1219 Seconds? But I want it now!
- ErikThompson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9My old Commodore 64 used to boot up pretty much instantly. The benefits of ROM vs. hard disks.
- liquidjamm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Ugh, I was just going to look at my SuSE 10.2 boot up process. It takes excruciating 4 to 5 minutes to boot up AMD dual core 64 bit, 1 GB RAM, though I have three older hard drives, but the rest of the hardware is fairly new as well as brand new install. I just leave the damn thing to boot and go in the kitchen to grab a quick snack :)
Well it's time to hit SuSE forums. - misteral, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10FTA: My secondary workstation is a Dell GX270 with a 3.0GHz P4 processor, 1GB of RAM and a 40GB Seagate ST340014A hard drive
- Kabloink, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Complaining about 40 seconds? Apparently, they never experienced the joy of having Windows 95 boot on a 486DLX. You could go get a cup of coffee and be back to your desk before it finished booting.
- xst4t1kx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"FTFA", from the ***** article?
- Gagle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8what kind of seconds are you talking about ?
- Coldkill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You're an idiot
- fak3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5do this: dmesg | grep "failed to set xfermode"
if you find that, I have some background, and a fix for it, here:
http://fak3r.com/2007/06/22/failed-to-set-xfermode-solved/
system was taking 2:45 to boot, now it takes 21 seconds. (P4 3.2 / 512M / 75G SATA) - cyberwiz01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Maybe he's a KDE developer?
- MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Anyone noticed that both guys claiming 10 second boot times are running 64-bit? Perhaps that's the differing factor here?
- WaldorfSalad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Color me dumb, but I don;t see the point of trying to 'drastically speed up' boot time on an Ubuntu box.
Only two things had much effect: Setting a static network IP, and reprofiling readahead for boot time.
Why all the effort to save a few seconds on a boot procedure that only happens on (relatively) rare occasions? - superllama, on 10/10/2007, -10/+14Just ***** leave your computer turned on for great justice.
- riah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Laptops usually don't stay on indefinitely.
- o0joshua0o, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Please explain what "Jacked core XP" is.
- xrenjrvt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8I just bought a laptop that shipped with the vista tax, it was a 3 minute boot by the time all the startup programs finished. It has the low voltage 1Ghz processor and 1.5G ram, but when I installed Ubuntu the boot time was 50 seconds for a complete boot. What is this about useable desktop, that's a load of crap, sure it shows your desktop but any program you launch will be really slow and unresponsive. I'd like to see proof of a 10 sec boot on vista.
- LegendarySock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Obvious lies.
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6That was a really good read. I put to be configured during boot and that really slows down the boot process by like 15 seconds or up to a minute if your internet is disconnected.
Not to start a flame war, but do you how long it would take to boot Vista on your machine? - Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9vista on my machine takes about 1-1.30 minutes to do a cold boot
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Vista takes more for me. What's really funny thought is that the more I use Windows, the faster it gets, probably because the optimizations (defrag, etc) it does while being idle.
- useful, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5A friend of mine in college made flash bootable linux computers with knoppix that controlled the card readers for the print machines and they booted up nearly instantly.
19 seconds is slow. - Brixican, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7For those who are lucky enough to have beefy hardware and massive power supplies, keeping the computer on all the time could rack up a rather large electricity bill, especially if using cpu's which aren't optimized for power consumption
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's your toy OS actually.
- Durrok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Proper user of contractions for great damage!
- oobuntu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Steven Ballmer? Is that you?
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Thanks for the link...
- allywilson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Can I ask why you felt the need to comment?
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3just read my post. It should say:
"I put NTP to be configured during boot and that really slows down the boot process by like 15 seconds or up to a minute if your internet is disconnected."
it should now make sense! - up2l8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wait, what? From TFA - his "original" method of testing started at 47secs. He winds up at 40 secs.
Saving 7 seconds seems... marginal... and weird considering his "boot time" went from 30 secs to 19 secs... something doesn't add up here. - oobuntu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3however you might learn something in the process that will be useful ?
- userxrage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4if i reboot my computer once every 2 weeks, saving 20 seconds each time, it would still take years to make up the time i would spend setting this up.
- LondonDude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Isn't that what the bury button is for? It's ok, you don't need to state your dislike for ythe article every time you use it
- MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2IO is the bottle-neck. Flash has very fast i/o. That is why newer Vista machienes actually have a little flash-drive built-in which it uses for booting up and as swap-space. Makes a lot of difference. Linux doesn't use those by default yet. (although it's not hard to set it up. Just point your swap partition there. Perhaps , if its really big you can also point your root directory there (and keep the /home and /usr on your real hard-drive).
Also networking matters. Linux waits until it sets up its network connections. Windows just shows an unable desktop .. - MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21) vista only runs on newer machienes. I can only expect they boot faster
2) windows always boots faster by default (clean install) because it has a micro-kernel (some drivers are still loading while your desktop is already on your screen, same goes for networking and samba *****)
3) when you get the login-prompt with linux, all your drivers are loaded, and all io and usb ports have been checked for new hardware. Windows doesn't plug-and-play those things by default. You have to manually do it.
4) windows actually profiles start-up files and put them on top when you defrag. You can't defrag ext3
5) i/o is the main bottle neck for both systems next to plug-and-pray crap. So we're really comparing ext3 (ubuntu's default) with ntfs (windows default). ReiserFS will boot faster. (but has other downsides)
So in reality we are comparing apples with pie.
I prefer pie though. - tenmenkilled, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4In Mother Russia the computer boots you!
- fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4On most systems I have built with Vista it booted on average 30-40% faster than XP. On average I'd say Vista took at most 20 seconds to boot and launch the whole desktop to a point where it was usable.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is