On 03/03/14 23:28, Fred Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:52:40 +1100 > Scott Ferguson <scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Which is fine for you, and I can understand and appreciate that, for my >> own personal computers my sentiments are similar. However my business >> purposes involve meeting SLAs so reboots once or twice a year can cost a >> lot of money - so in those circumstances a few minutes makes a lot of >> difference. Perhaps that's not something you care about - or it's just >> convenient to ignore until your bank/phone/stockbroker/shopping is >> interrupted as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-level_agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability#Percentage_calculation When you pay for a five nines SLA, perhaps for your business web site hosting, or what your bank/business pays for their trading platform that means we must be offline a *total* of less than 5 and a half minutes *a year*. That's begin reboot to all services restarted. Failure to do so results in penalties that can *very* quickly exceed the annual support contract. While a great deal of effort and planning goes into shifting loads so that reboots don't affect production - things don't always work to plan, so good plans allow for that. Meaning systems must be designed to reboot in less than the allowed downtime - with a safety margin. If we can shave a few seconds off reboot time we can shave a large amount off the support contract price, with the possibility that those savings are passed on to the consumer. And no, ksplice isn't a suitable alternative to reboot (for security reasons). Nor does the "my server" (with 2 users, no NOC and mid-range to deal with) only reboots every 5 years is not comparing apples with apples. Server support does not drive user demands or determine development requirements - but the kernel must. That's just one example of why fast boot-time (and shutdown) 'can' be critical. In my experience most businesses that run Linux don't do so primarily to reduce TOC - but because it gives them a business advantage. Continual development of Linux is partially determined by how much money companies are prepared to spend on developing Linux to scratch their own itch. E.g. most kernel development is paid for by companies. Another example is embedded devices - fast boot times means longer battery life. There are other benefits to faster boot times for embedded devices - i.e. how long are you willing to wait for your phone to turn back on? Assuredly there are many other use cases I haven't considered - but I have considered uses beyond those of the hobbyist home computer user or the rare academic and business situation where support wags the dog. >> Perhaps you simply put your "needs" before >> those of others - assuredly inadvertently. >> >> Given the interest displayed by "home users", and those that develop for >> embedded platforms, in fast boot times, I suspect your needs aren't >> stereotypical of all the users that Debian The Universal Operating >> System seeks to support. > > I really don't see how 10 seconds or a minute more can hurt anyone. I've expanded on the relevant sections you either missed, didn't understand, or believe were irrelevant but failed to point out where. > If > you reboot more often, then it's different. Not necessarily. The determining factor is always going to be - how quick do you need the reboot to be. You fail to make a compelling argument for slow reboots. :) Though you can insert wait states into the init of you choice and pretend your new computer is a 286. :) > But boot time is minor > issue. But boot time is a minor issue *for me*. TFTFY ;) > On the other hands, we've already seen how companies are doing > it: first they are going to impress us with fast boot and then everyone > start using it, and then slowly they insert more and more crap into the > boot process, since not boot system is fast and it's no problem and > after a few years your system is again slow as before, unless you buy a > new machine. Um, that's a bit of a sweeping statement isn't it? Do you have some data I can see that supports it? How is does that relate to Debian? > And BTW looks like Moore's low is not as before and computers > are becoming more expensive. AFAIK Moore hasn't changed his law (the Intel cofounder, or do you mean another "Moore"?) - it remains as before. And, it never said anything about cost. "over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years." Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5314f13e.7000...@gmail.com
