On Nov 30, 2011 12:51 AM, "Albert W. Hopkins" <mar...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: > > I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be > > completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, > > especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible > > time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and > > frequent > > boots). > > I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup > times with rc_parallel. The config file even says "slight speed" > improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you > might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most > people". > > Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for > some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get > to pick up the pieces. >
On my server boxen, rc_parallel gives a very tangible benefit. The boot time gets cut by roughly half. Rgds,
